On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:57:28 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> The original article seems to muddy the watter even more than anything
> else.
Not as much as your comments.
> For example, he claims Craig Mundie is the source of the "viral" license
> quote, but that's just bullshit.
"The" source or just *a* source? Of course the GPL *is* viral with
respect to *linked* code, but not, as some have suggested, with code on
the same computer or CD.
> Also many of the interpretations seem, well, convenient. For example, the
> claim that you have to make GPL'd source code available to those who have
> not received a copy of the software.
How does that "muddy the watter" [sic]?
> Finally, the claim that the GPL has been directly upheld in court is plain
> outright wrong. You might argue that it's been indirectly upheld, but no
> court has directly ruled on the validity of the GPL. Anywhere.
Nor has there been any need to. Violators of the licence, no matter how
rich, have backed off when they realized how little chance they had to
have it ruled invalid. If your friends at Microsoft are so confident that
it's invalid, they could try their luck in any jurisdiction in the world.
|
|
