MS Office on Linux 14768 plus 1
Getting the companies to abide by the terms of the GPL.
That violates the license. And yes, they did modify things to get them to work on their hardware.
Quick, without looking, can you even *name* one of them? And you've been studying the case! Publicity is *not* the motivation, and it's laughable you would suggest that.
"Uses it and nothing more"? They weren't just using it themselves, they were *distributing* it. If they hadn't been *distributing* it, there would not have been a problem? "Pay homage"? Asking them to make the source available (not even force them to provide it to everyone, just put it up on an FTP server somewhere) is "paying homage"? Wow, you're easy to please. Here, let me pay homage to you:
MS Office on Linux 14772
Here are at least three one-pbutt versions: The problem with the algorithm you just described is that you have to...
I didn't actually quote you or anything, but anyone clicking on that link will see your postings on Usenet. You must feel so honored...
There are four exceptions; facts, public domain, external factors, and efficiency. None of them are clear-cut, all of them depend on specific facts of the individual case.
Clean-room is the only legally ironclad way of reproducing a program. I won't deny that one *can* prevail in other circumstances, but I can't find much - indeed any - support for your buttertion that almost any copying is permitted.
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
MS Office on Linux 14770
Ray Ingles "Distributing" meant burning the tables into their ROMs to use in their hardware. That's hardly a "distribution" in the...
"Windows 2000... will have lots of stuff you used to pay extra for but is now built in for free, although none of it works." - Eric Lundquist