Am Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:49:42 +1030 schrieb David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote: > > If somebody prefers an other OS for license reasons only, let them. > > You cannot have open source software without open source license. > > If a company chooses Linux, they do it for technical reasons, and > > because they're able to modify the sources to suit their needs. > > Whatever advantages they see in Linux, they have to know that they > > have to accept its license. Just saying "I like your software but > > your license is stupid" is childish. Use CE instead. > > Nobody is saying "I don't like your licence." The issue is a > technical restriction in Linux that attempts to restrict non-GPL > software from running under it. What are you trying to say? You like the license but you're against enforcing it? > It's a bullish approach, technically incompetent, What's incompetent? > legally meaningless It is not legally meaningless if copyright holders publicly state how they interpret the license and what they consider a license violation. In the end, a court must decide, but lots of courts will at least look at the statements the copyright holders made over the years. > and politically damaging. That's your opinion because it's damaging _your_ political goals. Hans -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/