http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.htmlBusiness's ultimate goal is to be a monopoly in the particular area they inhabit and to have that monopoly requires that you have exclusive access to whatever your product / idea is and that no one can duplicate your work.
This type of legal-schmegal wrangling is what we expect from SCO and its brethren. It smells no better when it comes from OSS.
If you are a programmer then you (generally) get paid to code. Companies want that `one time' investment to be multiplied by a large return. So letting the code out isn't going to keep people locked in. Hence the general incompatibility with GPL'd software.
So reading this article I noticed that the writer was trying to bias the readers thinking toward `the FSF uses the GPL to dredge for hush money'. However at no point do we see the similar levels of legal maneuvering, trickery and mischief at law that characterise the SCO case.
The GPL, in my opinion, seeks to dislodge the culture of greed that large multi-national companies pursue, and to allow the technology age to be available to 3rd world and under priviledged people no matter what nation they exist in. However the cost is, as stated in the article, that if you build on the GPL then it's an open house.
-- James McDonald Singleton Australia
61+ (0)2 65712401 61+ 0428 320 219
When you're not looking at it, this fortune is written in FORTRAN.
Linux 2.4.22 #1 Mon Sep 1 20:03:11 EST 2003 athlon i386 GNU/Linux 10:10:00 up 11 days, 8:11, 1 user, load average: 2.16, 2.15, 1.77
_______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
