[linux-elitists] ultra 20 m2
Thu Jul 12 14:09:29 PDT 2007
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:13 -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Steven Critchfield (email@example.com):
> > This is why some people consider the GPL to be a viral license.
> > Specifically if you can't stay at arms distance from it,....
> ...which means nothing more than avoiding using someone else's
> copyrighted creative works without permission....
> > you are likely going to be required to release under the terms of the
> > GPL.
> Rubbish. Infamous misinformation, at that.
<sniped large and very informational examples>
> My point: NeXT, Inc. _elected_ to give back source code, after the
> obligatory initial period when they behaved like jerks, not because they
> had to (which they absolutely did not), but rather because it was
> greatly to the company's advantage to be able to give/sell customers
> compilers with enhanced language support.
> So, Steven: Please do not continue to spread that ridiculous and
> erroneous assertion about infringers supposedly being "required" to
> release changes. It's done more than enough damage, over the years.
Okay, so the required wording is over the top. One would be required to
release as GPL or GPL compatible license code that one still wishes to
distribute. The alternative is to stop distribution and hope that the
limited damage created isn't worth the original authors wishing to sue.
Steven Critchfield <firstname.lastname@example.org>
More information about the linux-elitists