Fw: Query about GNU-GPL

Niall Douglas s_fsfeurope2 at nedprod.com
Tue Mar 29 18:36:38 UTC 2005

On 28 Mar 2005 at 20:51, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:

> > Right now,
> > companies such as MS won't even let a single GPL binary anywhere
> > near their ISO's because of the legal uncertainty which surrounds
> > the GPL -
> >  almost certainly, an aggregate of binaries doesn't invoke source 
> > disclosure but MS's lawyers will have advised them better safe than
> > sorry. 
> The GPL is pretty clear about that. There is no uncertainty.

Well I'd agree. But without that part of the license being tested in 
court, it has no precedent. Hence, just to be on the safe side in 
case a court ruled something different, most lawyers advise complete 
abstention. For example, last time I heard Apple won't bundle 
anything GPL with MacOS X which definitely would really benefit from 
it. That just made me think of GCC which is GPL? Hmm, is that an 
optional/downloadable component or does it come on the install disc?

> > And that's a shame, because it's a pain in the ass for 
> > millions all over the world to have to go install various numerous
> > addons to new installations of Windows which would be much handier
> > if they came on the install CD (after all, we all don't have
> > broadband internet yet!)
> The biggest pain in the ass is windows itself. That has nothing to do
> with the GPL.

Windows has its advantages and disadvantages. People forget that the 
world before Windows was worse than now - software was even less 
reliable and even more costly in most instances. I'm no MS supporter, 
but let's be realistic on the good Windows has done for the world.


More information about the Discussion mailing list