In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious <ACDC@sti.net> wrote:
"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@XReXXCopyr.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
news:gnncnr$vod$1@blue.rahul.net...
"amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
That gives FOSS a bad name. Who wants to use stuff like that and risk
getting bitten by the looney tunes that think software is some kind of
religious experience?
There is a lot of truth in what you wrote, and it's not specific to free
software. Enforcement of copyright (and patents) often gives the
enforcer a bad name.
I don't suggest that enforcement itself is the problem, it is the
enforcement of meaningless requirements. If the RIAA pinches some
downloader, they get a few thousand bucks or more in return. That, at
least, makes some sense as to why the RIAA is being so diligent. But
just
having another unvisited site for some out of date source code is hardly
worth the time and effort of the courts to go along on this ego trip.
It's hardly meaningless. It means the source code is available.
Surely no one in their right mind would use the Actiontec site as a
source for BusyBox, they would go the the BusyBox project site for the
latest fixes.
They're likely to want the source of the version embedded in their
Actiontec box. For example, to diagnose a problem, or to complain
about its out-of-dateness, or to check it for security problems.