Subject: Re: lesser GPL restrictions
From: "Chris D. Sloan" <cds@cs.hmc.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 22:44:47 -0800

For the concrete example of Microsoft using parts of Linux, they would
legally have to release the source of Windows under the GPL.  This
will *never* happen while pigs remain land bound animals, but if it
did, I'm sure that the Free Software Foundation (and anyone who
believes in the philosophy which led them to develop the GPL) would be
ecstatic and would consider it a huge moral victory.

If you release code under the GPL, then you should be prepared to
accept this or you should find a new license.

The FSF specifically wants to encourage companies to not create closed
source but to release as open source.

	Chris

P.S.  I specifically talked about the FSF because it is my
understanding from their web site and similar sources that this is
exactly their philosophy.  I realize that some (possibly many) people
who release code under the GPL may not share this view.

On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 01:29:24AM -0500, Michael Beck wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: email@greglondon.com
> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 01:18
> 
> > and it's no different if the user is just some
> > guy who wants a word processor and calander program
> > for his personal use, or someone who is using
> > open source to create a proprietary program.
> >
> > in either case, open-source is caused no harm.
> 
> So if Microsoft takes some cool parts of Linux and incorporates it in Windows
> (assuming for a second that it's legally possible), you would be OK with it?
> 
> Michael
> 
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3


-- 
Chris Sloan
cds@cs.hmc.edu
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3