On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 02:18:08PM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote: > > That doesn't mean that they *wouldn't*. Did you actually read what I > > said? I suspect not. > Yes, you proposed a situation wherin the software would be licensed if > it were distributed for free, but distributors would have to pay for > their own if they sold the software for profit. > This differs from the RTLinux patent in that RTLinux licenses their > patent to anyone who distributes the software under the GPL, whether > they sell it for profit or not.
Wow. You *didn't* read what I said! And you didn't even take the opportunity I offered to go back and check. Amazing. > The terms of the GPL are compatible with RTLinux's patent, but not with > what you proposed. Wow again. You're making up stuff, claiming I said it, telling me it's wrong, and then you have the audacity to make snide comments -- complete with swearing -- about my understanding of the GPL. Here, I'll repost: It might be possible with enough money to get a license for any/all GPLed software. This would result in a situation like that of QT -- if you want to make proprietary software, you'd still have to buy your own license. What's the problem here? -- Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> -- Phoebe-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
