On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 11:01 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > Alan Cox wrote: > >>> Open Solaris > >> Which can't use device drivers that have GPL restrictions - the viral > >> nature of the GPL has hijacked much of the work that would otherwise be > >> available for any use. > > > > Strange use of the word "hijack". The licence was decided by the code > > author, so it would be like saying someone hijacked their own car. The > > licence, if anything, stops Sun hijacking their work. > > Sorry, I just don't understand the concept of _wanting_ to prevent the > distribution of improved versions of code and keeping others from having > it, while at the same time claiming it is free. > > But, as for hijacking, can you assert that no work currently in Linux > came from unrestricted *bsd style code and had GPL restrictions attached > to further development, hindering additional innovation? And that every > contributor would have chosen to restrict distribution if it had not > been necessary? ---- language as persuasion is always worth watching. I seem to recall the language of 'viral' being attached to GPL by that great champion of software freedom...Steve Balmer so it does seem curious that you signed on to that terminology. As a user of Linux, I am convinced that it is the GPL license that has allowed Linux to become what it is today. Your perspective on this list simply hasn't engendered any support. Craig
