Re: [tlug] GPL non-sense

[Shawn Brown <big.coffee.lover@example.com>]

>> What they want to do though is embed their trademark pretty deeply.  If they (or anyone) modify the graphics rendering to include their trademark, suddenly ...
>
> Suddenly what?

1) I don't think I can redistribute their binary
2) I don't think I can redistribute their src
3) to make a distributable binary and src, I will have to figure out
where and how they are rendering their trademarks and replace it with
something else.

This is despite the GPL clause:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Source Code.
The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
control those activities.

Their source code and scripts does not produce a distributable binary
or source.  Isn't that the intent of the requirement.  No?

Like I said, I think the requirement should be modified to specify
that the resulting source and binaries derived from gpl3 code be
redistributable.

Before this, I thought it was.

Shawn