25 Apr
2009
25 Apr
'09
6:17 p.m.
Legal licence holds some more weight over their strange habits, I think. -AT On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Ray Rashif wrote:
Actually, it is distributed under the GPL, so that is techniqually fine...
Yes, but that is why I mentioned "author's intentions".
But the author also intends you to provide the source when you distribute binaries. That is why they used the GPL license. So I would pick that intention over the contradictory one...
Allan