|
I repeat: you have provided no legal justification for that claim.
You are the one who wants the license to mean more than is actually written into it. You have the burden of proof, and have thus far failed to attempt to meet it.
Obviously, (2) seems to be the course that many businesses with competent legal representation are choosing: to honor the license and source distribution as published, not as any other party (whether they are SCO, a Linux contributor having second thoughts 5 years later, or some random guy off the street) wishes that they were published.
John:
No, but we're not discussing morality here, or what any one of us actually intends to do- this is the legal forum.
Stilton
|