Patrick R. Wade wrote:
On the one hand, it will gratuitously alienate some Linux adopters
that *have* been embracing and extending Linux behind closed doors
(Google comes to mind) and inspire them to re-think the benefits of
*BSD. On the other hand, it will add more fuel to the "viral license"
FUD; M$ will be able to point to concrete examples of businesses
"forced" to expose their formerly proprietary code. 2005 could well
be the high water mark of Open Source thanks to GPL 3.
Exactly. Why should I be forced to open code I have no intentions on
selling, distributing, or otherwise letting anyone know I have?
On the other hand, how would anyone know about this "violation" of GPL3
if I never let the code out of my own servers? The only reasonable
answer I can come up with is "disgruntled [ex]employee".
It sounds like "they" are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist,
and/or force software to be open. Both are wrong IMNSHO.
Russ
_______________________________________________
EUGLUG mailing list
euglug@euglug.org
http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
