Les Mikesell wrote: > Peter Gordon wrote: >> and would need to continuously prove their superiority to >> potential users and developers in other ways (such as: What is the quality >> of >> the codebase? What attention is paid to proactive security? > > I don't see how the license has any bearing at all here. Can you give > an example of Linux vs. (say) one of the *BSD's where using the GPL > matters in this regard. The license has bearing here because it if were a BSD-like license, then they would be competing (in theory) on features along, not the overall user experience or quality of code. >> > Yes, preventing many similar useful products. >> Please name one specific product example that has been prevented from being >> marketed and/or sold by the GPL. > > An OSX like system, complete with drivers for all hardware and other > licensed components along with a GPL'd kernel. Wrong! OS X is based on FreeBSD's code, and other open source things which Apple has released under their APSL (whose recent revisions *are* GPL-compatible, if I recall correctly). Apple is in no way required to keep their OS X kernel open source, yet they do anyway because of the good community PR and development support it gains for them. >> As I understand it, it (Samba) was reverse-engineered strictly for the >> purposes of interoperability. This is considered fair, and is legal under >> international copyright law. > > 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. Ack. I misunderstood that in relation to your earlier statements. Thanks for the clarification. -- Peter Gordon (codergeek42) This message was sent through a webmail interface, and thus not signed.