On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:59:18 -0600 Collins Richey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:10:36 -0400 (EDT) Net Llama! > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Collins Richey wrote: > > > http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html > > > > > > This type of legal-schmegal wrangling is what we expect from SCO > > > and its brethren. It smells no better when it comes from OSS. > > > > I see nothing wrong with it. How would you propose that the GPL be > > enforced? > > > > What I read from this is an interpretation of the GPL that could > loosely be expressed as "what is mine is mine, what is yours is also > mine." I personally don't believe that such an interpretation has any > real benefit, although I'm certain that proponents of the GPL might > disagree. No. The GPL simply means that if you distribute software that I wrote or a derivative thereof, you must distribute it under the GPL. If you don't want to, then don't use my code. Write your own. At least the GPL gives you the choice. Think about it. Do you want to spend your time writing a piece of software, distribute it along with the source code so that others can improve upon it, and have someone steal it and close the source. Bill _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
