On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:41:48 -0700 "jdow" <jdow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > GPL likely will see to it that Windows continues to exist, though. > There are needs GPL cannot meet unless some college student subsidized > by the father he's putting out of work builds these special purpose > applications. Joanne, please. You know that Windows is going to continue to exist regardless of what GPL software does. If MAC can't kill Windows, Linux sure as hell can't. > Now, envision cell phones and the Linux operating system. If they > are slightly tweaked so that it is impossible to build an application > for a cell phone without becoming contaminated by GPL who loses? > The large companies basically keep out other developers because > there's no adequate income model for small cell phone addon tools > and applications, as much as they might be needed. If they can't find a way to play by the rules then they can't use GPL. That's all the GPL cares about. It's not out to change the world. All it is designed to do is create a community of people who agree to play by a certain set of rules. The MIT, LGPL, proprietary etc etc licenses are all perfectly fine choices for situations where the GPL isn't. > It all has intended and unintended consequences. In his zeal I feel > that RMS has not adequately addressed some of these unintended > consequences. Of if he has he clearly does not have user protection > in mind when he does. Screw RMS. The GPL has taken on a life of its own, people are free to judge its merrit without knowing anything about RMS or his politics etc. Many people like and use the GPL. Sean
