Suik wrote:if so...how? since 3.x. I can't manage to make the line
- Code: Select all
GPS.Show GPS: no
"functional" if changed to yes.
Same applies to changing the ID numbers of Hazards shown in the client .
xteejx wrote:They haven't. It wasn't a complete rewrite. Its still based on code from Ehud's roadmap for linux. If it contains even a single line of GPL code it MUST be GPL itself and as above, must be released immediately or hosted on something like github.
Sent from my Telenor_OneTouch using Tapatalk
stacktrase wrote:Yes but if you use GPL code you can't modify it and have it closed source.
What problems? Again there's no prohibition against relicensing *your own code*. You can also purchase/transfer copyright and relicense.Shr3k wrote:Maybe it would be better to come clean, than have problems with GNU GPL or FSF.
You really are being dense, but ok:Shr3k wrote:bgodette wrote:What problems? Again there's no prohibition against relicensing *your own code*. You can also purchase/transfer copyright and relicense.
Waze client is based on Israeli fork of RoadMap routing application (http://sourceforge.net/projects/roadmap/) originally developed by Pascal Martin as GNU GPL (derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Genera ... e#Copyleft
Are the public insinuations that there's code theft after it's been explained many times really necessary?OldGnome wrote:bgodette wrote:You really are being dense...
Are the public insults really necessary?
vvvvvShr3k wrote:bgodette wrote:Are the public insinuations that there's code theft after it's been explained many times really necessary?OldGnome wrote:Are the public insults really necessary?
This is straw man. I didn't know that someone wrote about a code theft.
e.g. insinuating code theft. You continue to ignore the fact that relicensing is allowed to willfully perpetuate this insinuation.Shr3k wrote:I took the trouble, unlike you, to find similar or identical function calls, similar directory structure used in time of compiling in dynamically linked shared object library of Waze GPL and closed-source clients and expressed a doubt.
No you did as your intent is clear. You've presented nothing but speculation and accusation. It is up to YOU to support YOUR claims, and you have not done so.Shr3k wrote:bgodette wrote:e.g. insinuating code theft. You continue to ignore the fact that relicensing is allowed to willfully perpetuate this insinuation.
This is argumentum ad hominem. Again I remind you if you have better information just present it. It's more constructive than continue writing something I never wrote and even never meant.
You seem to have a mistaken belief about how the GPL works in regards to *your own code*. It specifically allows you to relicense at will *your own code* regardless of it having been previously under the GPL.Shr3k wrote:Regards relicensing, it seems you you totally forgot the "infectiousness" of GPL.
You finally acknowledged one of the points I brought up as to why there is no problem.Shr3k wrote:If you want a use a GPL code in closed source project, you must ask and relicense every piece of code, every patch, from every developer who worked on it before.
Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher