[ale] More from Business Week

[Jeff Hubbs]

That's EXTREMELY wrong and I hope lots of people track down the author.

For one thing, the GPL requirement to make source available only kicks
in if you release the binary.  No one can stop me from code-forking the
Linux kernel in my own house and taking it as far as I like.

- Jeff

On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 10:40, John Wells wrote:
> Reading "The Linux Uprising", one quote rubbed me the wrong way:
> 
> "Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in
> which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it."
> 
> Why must the press always confuse open source with the GPL?  It's blatant
> misinformation, and I'll bet that sentence turns some managers away from
> considering open source software.
> 
> The GPL is a great license, but there are so many other open source
> licenses out there that do allow you to redistribute without open sourcing
> your code.  I wish that just once, a large-scale non-tech oriented
> magazine like Business Week would set this record straight.
> 
> I'm not as hard core in my beliefs as Stallman, and I choose to view open
> source as an attitude, not a license.
> 
> BS like this only contributes to Microsoft's FUD and cancer commentary.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale


_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale