| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
FUD and such...FUD and such...Posted Oct 23, 2004 2:13 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)Parent article: Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times)
Hate to use the "F" word, but just have a read of this: First, as a straight interpretive matter, it only states what the obligation of each programmer is with his own private improvements. It does not in so many words specify the appropriate remedy when some portion of the open source code is incorporated into an otherwise proprietary program. The apparent intention of the provision is to infect that new program so that all of its content becomes open source software subject to the GPL. In principle, the entire Microsoft operating system could count as the work that becomes open source because a few lines of open source code have been incorporated into it by inadvertence. Since when is compulsory licensing one of the remedies for copyright infringement? This is the exact false argument one can find on Microsoft's web site. Complete and utter nonsense. All one needs to do is:
Stopped reading at that point...
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||