On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:36:31 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Absolutely. On the one hand this encourages companies like > RedHat and IBM that make their money on selling services and > hardware to pour resources into it knowing that someone > else can't improve it in a way that would compete against > them, but on the other hand it means the end user won't > be able to get that improved product. Listen to yourself. Somehow the GPL managed to help see IBM and Red Hat pour resources into improving it, yet somehow its a bad thing. You again ignore the fact that you can take that software and improve it yourself. Or pay someone to improve it for you. And then you can share those changes with the world. You really need to rethink this stupid notion about the GPL. > No, this means certain things can't ever be included. FFS, there is no license that can guarantee otherwise. Please get this argument out of your system. > An OSX like system, complete with drivers for all hardware and other > licensed components along with a GPL'd kernel. Then for $DEITY sake go use OSX. Nobody is forcing you to use GPL software. > Copyrights and patents are very different approaches. Microsoft has > not chosen to enforce any patent protection against samba yet but > that doesn't mean they can't or won't. Oh well. Even in the unlikely case that Samba is found to impinge on a MS patent and must be withdrawn it won't be the end of the world. Microsoft would have to be a bit crazy to go down that road then since they would alienate so many customers and potential customers that it would likely cost them more than it was worth. Sean
