App, I generally agree with your opinion on GPL and the potential right to the source code. But please keep in mind copyright law is not the holy grail of IP protection and GPL can be just as evil as it is virtuous. In the eyes of many, GPL is just a bible distributed from a Church.
What is your plan with the source code if secured? Distribute it?
May I ask what is the point of this insistence on forcing a generous coder, who has already given so much for free to so many people at large, to give up the source code of his IP, to potentially give up this project to the many out there who are ever-ready to abuse it, to kiss good-bye to a personal pride, to relinquish a retirement hobby, to leave out a source of income, so that FSF can be satisfied with the "compliance"?
I wonder how gratitude is defined towards a person who revived a dead project and has been revitalizing tirelessly it for the continual benefit of so so many.
As opposed to big corp GPL-related scandals, this is a case which, I'd argue, is for the utilitarian convenience of most and should be whole-heartedly supported as it is regardless of licensing technicalities.
Just don't go too technical because you have a reference book at hand:
- You don't file a suit against yourself for your past/current copyright violations because people around you commit these offenses every now and then, nobody cares. Technically, who knows any one of us probably should be serving terms already.
- Police don't charge everyone with offense by the book, there's always a human factor
- Lisay Lohan didn't stay 90 days in jail... she was supposed to.
Give them a break. Move on.@40hz:
Thanks for the enlightenment.