>they're not doing anything wrong. So far as I can tell, there's no
>intellectual property restriction wrapped around the VNC protocol itself,
>so non-derivative works which use the protocol should be perfectly legal.
>As is selling a product with VNC, or which _is_ VNC. The only problem would
Correct. The GPL guarantees that the GPL'ed work remains freely available.
It does NOT state that it is illegal to charge people for the product. Of
course, anyone who pays for an easily downloadable, freely available
product probably deserves to get fleeced for failing to check out their
alternatives, since even a rudimentary web search for PalmVNC will turn up
several pages, and Harakan software (the current developers) will be in the
top handful. From their site it is very obvious that the product is freely
available.
A similar situation used to exist for Netscape. Anyone could download it
for free from FTP sites, web sites (using Mosaic or earlier Netscape), or
BBSs. But it was also available in various packages, starting at $50, in
local retail stores and online stores. Different, because Netscape owned
the software, but similar in that users could buy or download.
Mac
_____________________________ /"\
Mac Reiter \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Nomadics, Inc. X Against HTML Mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ (To join the campaign, simply use
this in your signature.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a message with the line: unsubscribe vnc-list
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
