In gnu.misc.discuss Doctor Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 8 May 2009 08:37:48 +0000 (UTC), Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Not really. The alleged convolution of the GPL is merely a hypothesis. >> Evidence against this hypothesis is that these long threads are pretty >> much restricted to special-purpose forums (such as this one).
>> There are other equally (or more) convincing hypotheses, for example that >> the people driving these threads wish to foster an impression that the >> GPL is convoluted, difficult and risky; classic FUD. >>> It's no wonder corporations tend to run from it. >> If they actually do, which is not at all clear. More likely, >> corporations avoid licensing their code under the GPL, those that do, >> because they don't want it to become free software. > I agree a lot of it is misinformation but that's my point, the GPL is > clouded by confusion. I suspect this confusion is engendered deliberately, to a large extent. > I suspect corporations, the suits not the programmers so much, are afraid > of the GPL because they assume that their proprietary technology might be > in danger of having to be shared if inter mingled with GPL code. Well, yes, except there's rarely a "might" about it. That's fair enough. You don't incorporate GPL code into your proprietary program. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
