[shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing

To my knowledge the GPL says the source must be available. It 
doesn't say you have to include it in the product, post it on a site, or 
anything along those lines simply that it must be available. 
Personally my original release of nDI was based on rather ugly 
code (lacking comments, descriptive variable naming, and totally 
lacking borland coding standards) and since the release was a beta 
to find bugs, and what people wanted I put a note in the readme 
saying if you want the source and I still have an up-to-date copy of 
it e-mail me. Then again I also violated the license by releasing it 
under a BSDish license so maybe I'm not the best person to answer 
this. Anyway the point to it is my interpretation is that you have to 
allow open access to the source if it's requested.

Nexistenz - Violating licenses for the greater good.

For those wondering yes I feel the GPL restricts my personal 
freedom to innovate (as M$ would say) so I support BSDish 
licenses. I mean c'mon if I do something once and end up working 
on a commercial product that could borrow some snippits why 
should I be forced to release it under the GPL or reinvent the 
wheel?

__________________________________________________
Subscription options and archive:
http://www.freelists.org/list/shell-coding

Other related posts: