Well, I guess this would have been another 2.5 billion dollars in the treasury if the DOJ and the judge had got it right. Maybe CKK will eventually get to hitting Bill where it hurts.
Well, when land ownership changes, and there is a public right of way (which is loosely what the standard brings to the party), the new owner cannot revoke the public right of way. Now, personally, I feel that information etc should not be treated the same way as physical property, but, if companies want to do that, then they should live by the existing rules.
Well, what exactly constitutes...
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 1
.. the source code. The obfuscated code is not the source. So I would expect the GPL to satisfactorily cover this case, enforcing the original comprehensible code to be released. Obfuscated code could be considered a form of object code. So, the source code is being compiled twice instead of once, how does that invalidate the GPL?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I guess this would have been another 2.5 billion dollars in the treasury if the DOJ and the judge had got it right. Maybe CKK will eventually get to hitting Bill where it hurts.
Well, when land ownership changes, and there is a public right of way (which is loosely what the standard brings to the party), the new owner cannot revoke the public right of way. Now, personally, I feel that information etc should not be treated the same way as physical property, but, if companies want to do that, then they should live by the existing rules.
.. the source code. The obfuscated code is not the source. So I would expect the GPL to satisfactorily cover this case, enforcing the original comprehensible code to be released. Obfuscated code could be considered a form of object code.
So, the source code is being compiled twice instead of once, how does that invalidate the GPL?