Subject: Re: Two GPL Questions
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 22:26:02 -0800

begin Justin Wells quotation:

[FSF:]

> Its adversarity, say Microsoft Corp., has different ideas about how
> the GPL v3 should be worded... for example, allowing Microsoft (and
> only Microsoft) to incorporate all GPL'd software into Windows.

(Lawfully and with public acknowledgement, you mean.  For all we know,
there's plenty already there.)

Result Primus:  The next versions of all GPLed work no longer permit
accepting the software under GPL v. 3.  Microsoft Corp. finds that it
has gained only the right to a proprietary fork of old versions, if it 
cares to maintain them.

Result Secundus:  The free software world immediately gains a propaganda
victory of epic proportions.  Which is of course why the Redmondites
wouldn't be dumb enough to pursue that strategy in the first place.

-- 
This message falsely claims to have been scanned for viruses with F-Secure
Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange and to have been found clean.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3