zlacker

That's a misinterpretation.

If you are distributing someone else's GPL code, then you must comply with the license and provide build scripts etc.

If you choose to release some code under the GPL that you yourself have written, but do not feel like even writing a Makefile, that's totally fine.

>>kelnos+(OP)
By that method, you might claim that all terms of all licenses (Free Software, Open Source, or proprietary) aren't really important, as the copyright holder can always ignore any of them.

I mean, yes, that's technically correct. But I'm not sure how useful it is? What is it adding to the discussion?

>>Karell+to1
They are binding on users who obtain binaries. Not on the copyright holder.

The holder can change licencing for new versions of the software afterall