| |||||||||||
All Closed-Source Licenses are 'Viral' TooAll Closed-Source Licenses are 'Viral' TooPosted Dec 12, 2003 18:40 UTC (Fri) by dmag (subscriber, #17775)Parent article: "'Viral' Open-Source License Can Destroy Software's Value" Note how he twists the GPL's "licensed at no charge" into "obligated not to charge [for your product]." He can't be right because people do charge money for Linux. He has ignored the distinction between 'the product' and 'the license to use (and distribute) the product'. He also tries to imply that the GPL is not 'voluntary': "Removing the GPL code the company had adopted and ceasing its re-publication does not put the horse back in the barn". Hmm, if I rob a bank but put the money back later, have I really committed a crime? Using other people's software without a license is breaking the law. The fact that someone can sue you for it is a feature, not a bug. Bravo to LWN for actually doing research and pointing out the difference between contracts and licenses.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||