> Quoting Andy Sy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > I believe what happened was said companies removed the GPLed source > > from their binary only offerings in order to avoid violating the GPL. > > To avoid _continuing_ to violate the GPL. > > But you're now blatantly evading the point: What about all that rubbish > about the borrowed code being "viral" because "it infects all the code > combined with GPL-licensed code with the additional requirement that > they be offered under the GNU license as well"? > > Are you now saying that did _not_ happen? What accounts for that, Andy? > Was it _intervention by space aliens_?
You seem to be the only one around who is taking the definition of 'viral' this literally and for the sole purpose of being difficult and argumentative. It is definitely 'viral' if you want continue using the code. Siiiggghhhhh..... like trying to communicate with the PMS version of a Woody pullstring doll. > Or, perhaps, was it that you were engaging in overblown rhetoric, > preying on people's lack of sophistication in matters of business law, > and probably didn't really think the matter through at all? <snicker> ... and *I'm* the one you're accusing of engaging in rhetoric??? :-) :-) :-) > The way things work in the _real_ world is precisely as your > most-recent wording (quoted above) describes. The offending > party halts its violation, takes a big hit of unfavourable > public relations, maybe mumbles a few words of apology, and > the world moves on. Ehhh??? What about all those other projects where commercial companies have indeed contributed code back to a project because they want to use it and it was GPLed. This is especially true in the case of GCC. Thanks for clearing up the facts as to who it is who's been cluelessly blathering all along... _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
