>> I take it you have never given the GPL to a lawyer to read?
>>
>> They go apeshit.
>>
>> They _really really_ don't like it.
>
>and this is an argument against GPL???
"Depends on how you look at it". But it _is_ an argument as to why
it would make NMH less likely to be picked up by commercial Unix vendors,
and that was the original argument.
>Of course they don't like it. GPL is a virus. It infects all other software
>it touches. In order to use it, you have to GPL the rest of your code.
>
>That's why they don't like it and it's also why other folks do like it. It
>all depends on what "ownership" you claim for the software you want to bundle
>it with.
Let's not only lump lawyers in with the "they don't like it class" ...
_I_ don't like it either, for slightly different reasons. I don't mind
if someone else incorporates my software into a commercial product (I
also am not a fan of the infectious nature of the GPL, but I digress).
Some other people do. That's fine; there are different license styles
for each case. But saying something like, "The GPL doesn't inhibit the
bundling of software package X with a commercial operating system" is
_completely_ naive.
--Ken
