In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious <ACDC@sti.net> wrote:
"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@XReXXCopyr.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
news:gnpj2u$7q3$1@blue.rahul.net...
"amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
Look at the SFLC website for a complete list. Typically, some company,
for
example Monsoon, uses stock FOSS stuff in their product, which is what
the
FOSS folk seem to want them to do...
Typically these example companies are misappropriating copyrighted
software. It takes negligible effort to include a copy of the GPL with
their software distributions. If they don't, this is clearly an attempt
to hide their wrong-doing.
I don't agree with that. The FOSS value proposition is that if you use
it,
fine, and if you modify it and distribute it you must disclose your
modifications. That is not as fine, but the targets of the SFLC did not
modify BusyBox at all.
That is only visible when the source code is available.
They simply used it, overlooking the notion that they had to mirror the
source for it. Since they got it for free so easily, it is easy to see
how they could assume that they didn't really need to bother with the
details.
That might have been the case 15 years ago, but nowadays _anybody_,
barring a confirmed troglodyte, who has anything at all to do with any
sort of software development must be cannot help but be aware of free
software and its licenses.