I had read the entire thread. Having done so, I don't really see what difference that would have made either way.
You missed the point. He may well be obligated to distribute the source. I don't see where in the license it says a third party (or the author of the original work) can distribute the derivative work without permission even if the derivative work is infringing the original works' license. I'm not a lawyer, so don't for one minute think I'm saying this is
the case, but I think it's possible that everyone who has distributed his work has committed copyright infringement also. I was originally talking about morals rather than legality.
A court orders a father to pay his child's mother support payments. This father is now obligated to pay. If he refuses to comply with his obligations, the mother has no right to take what she's entitled to herself; she must use the proper legal channels. Vigilante justice is not legal for good reason.
Originally Posted by hoboman
yep, he already posted those tools
I know. The part of the sentence you quoted is ambiguous, but you can infer what I meant from what precedes it.