Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Jun 2007 21:45 UTC
Permalink for comment 246709
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-05
Thanks, having limited familiarity with the LGPL, that really helps clear things up for me. Now, when I read the following, it makes a lot more sense:
"I would contend that there is no trademark violation, as permission for minor modifications to the source of Ion3 is implied by distributing the source."
And if what someone claimed here is true, that the hacked version was basically distributed, modified, Ion3 code with instructions to compile, then I would agree that they are within the terms of the original license. Even so, I still respect Tuomov for his efforts with Ion3 and wish him all the best. No sense in getting all bitter and bent out over the incident.