xfdesktop2 or xfdesktop-acer source

[Gregoire Gentil]

If you really want something to happen, send this to a few journalists
and bloggers. When some articles start poping up, Acer will feel bad and
scared, and they will put the pressure on Limpus to make sure that they
release the source code. It's the most efficent least expensive way to
go to my mind,

Gregoire


> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:42:17 +0200
> From: Dumitru Mi?u Moldovan <dumol at gnome.ro>
> Subject: Re: Re : Re : xfdesktop2 or xfdesktop-acer source
> To: XFCE general discussion list <xfce at xfce.org>
> Message-ID: <1234539737.23721.2.camel at dumitrum.gecadco.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> ?n data de Vi, 13-02-2009 la 08:04 -0700, David Mohr a scris:
> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Pascal Gervais <pggervais at yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > >> De : Grant Williamson <traxtopel at gmail.com>
> > >
> > > I just downloaded "xfdesktop-acer-lp-1526.no_spot.mcs_patched.src.rpm" and it does not contain any source code. But I wonder if there is a GPL violation if they provide the source code upon request.
> > 
> > The question is, do they? I know someone on this list who has tried
> > for months, and I myself have made one (weak) attempt with no success.
> 
> http://gpl-violations.org/faq/legal-faq.html has an interesting point of
> view that confirms this:
> 
> ?When we started enforcing the GPL, we tried it by sending e-mails,
> faxes and letters ourselves, rather than going through lawyers. However,
> those letters were simply ignored in almost all cases.
> 
> Therefore, it is our experience that trying informal means of
> communication is not worth the effort, especially since it reduces the
> amount of time we have for applying to a preliminary injunction (in
> Germany), and therefore puts us into a worse position.
> 
> Formal warning notices sent through our lawyers always tend to draw
> attention at the appropriate management level, and therefore tend to be
> addressed with the required seriousness for a major copyright
> violation.?
> 
> -- 
> mi?u