On 07/21/2010 12:09 AM, Levi Pearson wrote: > I'm not sure why you're surprised, as it doesn't really seem relevant. > Individual packages within Ubuntu may be GPL-licensed, but the whole > distribution doesn't have an overarching license agreement, and I > don't think the GPL would work for that either. If they made changes > to specific packages that were GPL-licensed and didn't distribute > them, that would illustrate a point, but I don't think it's a point > that anyone was confused about.
You draw a good point, and while merely an assumption, I think it would be safe to say that Google is making changes to GPL-licensed code, as well as other licensed code. It's heavily speculated that GWS is just a modified version of Apache. The fact that they won't release Goobuntu (or any other custom-built Google appliance), seems to be that they are probably changing GPL, and other licensed cod to fit their own internal needs. Aside from the fact that making these releases, likely doesn't fit into their business model anyway. With that said, according to Mark Shuttleworth, they are submitting patches upstream to Ubuntu, Apache, and others, thus the avoiding doing any evil. Anyway, this is all speculation, as I don't work there, and there seems to be very little on the subject across the web. So, I'll concede. -- . O . O . O . . O O . . . O . . . O . O O O . O . O O . . O O O O . O . . O O O O . O O O
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
