Stewart Stremler wrote: > is solvable by the application of money. Errors with GPL'd code are > solvable only by pouring the lifeblood of the company on to the ground.
...or by just removing the GPL'd code. > I know of at least one company that killed a product when threated by > GPL Nazis 'cuz their product wrote configuration files for a GPL'd > project. What company/product was this and what GPL'd project did it write config files for? On what basis did the GPL Freedom Fighters (hey, I can spin too!) threaten them if they were not using any GPL'd code in their product? > It's that sort of attitude, I think, that will keep Linux from ever > becoming truly "mainstream". Who wants to deal with a vendor who so > easily wishes ill on a customer 'cuz it's deserved? So easily? It takes an awful lot to wish that sort of thing on someone. Using the whole Linux kernel, the product of gazillions of man hours of work, and not releasing the source in violation of the license is no little thing. It is also a trivially avoidable thing. I've worked for a lot of companies now, some small and some large, who all used open source software and I have never once heard any of them express any concern over this issue which leads me to believe it is really a non-issue. Andrew's company may forbid the use of GPL'd software but given the very widespread use of Linux in corporate America today we can be sure they are in a very small minority. -- Tracy R Reed http://copilotconsulting.com 1-877-MY-COPILOT -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
