On Fri, 1 May 1998 10:40:11 -0600 (MDT)
Kirk Rafferty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would.
>
> As someone else pointed out, MS supporting free software would be a good
> thing, not a bad thing (although it will probably never happen). MS could
> indeed make MS Perl (Camels in Redmond, oh my! :), but they would have to
> release the source code (under the terms of the GPL). Microsoft would no
> more own MS Perl than anyone else in the world. They could charge for the
> CD, but they could not limit the distribution, so you could borrow it from
> your buddy.
I was just wondering who enforces things like GPL?
If for example MS did decide to put out a version of perl, but
didn't release the code as per GPL, who would sue them?
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dominique Cormann ICQ# 6985266 Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted with Becky 1.24 --> http://www.rimarts.co.jp/becky.htm
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
