MS Office on Linux 14783
MS Office on Linux Discussion, linux 14787
The theory that MS pays the local wintrolls would answer one question: Why do they do it? But it would do so by raising a...
Ray Ingles I don't find it very interesting. The life cycle consists of a pointless disparagement of either Microsoft or OSS followed by "liar" followed by the party lines. Nothing really argumentative there at all.
A bluff even there. If you follow the links, a simple "I'm OK" declaration will get you to the download. There is no reason on earth to spend any money to try to prevent this unauthorized usage. The user is not going to pay under any circumstances, so you will never lose a sale.
Well, the stated condition is not that I improve or extend or otherwise derive the copied function, but rather that it is aggregated with software, in the same executable, that is wholly unique and not party to any GPL development in the past.
MS Office on Linux 14788
begin oeprotect.scr If you look at this from the viewpoint of someone googling for relevant linux information from groups to some query or other, then the pap which is posted here might well produce one...
Well "code snippets" at that level are exactly what I have been talking about, Ray. I stipulated that entire works are OOB for simple duplication. I am mainly interested in having a quick way to incorporate the mundane parts of a task via these snippets in order to focus most of the available time on some new thing.
MS Office on Linux 14784
Check out this guy who says it's his job: Here's his key support of this...
For example, I want to have automatic update available for my nifty product from my website. I don't want to make a new and different auto update, just use the functions the way everyone else uses them without having to re-invent that function.
You can suggest that, but there are millions of people doing software in the world. If 1% are unethical, then there are tens of thousands of unethical developers ripping off something. Since there's no penalty for ripping off MS samples, usually, they should be ripping off GPL stuff, as your cite suggested. But few, relative to the expected population of unethical pracbreastioners, come before the bar to be tried. Are you questioning that it is my belief or that it is correct? I have provided my argument, namely that the apparent legal interpretation of "unique expression" does not fit computer source code very well. Your own cites seem to support that. My one friend's opinion is supportive. The other thinks the argument has some merit, but has no stated opinion himself. Well, this was a complete copy with next to nothing different. Googling around shows lots of repeats of this basic information regarding this incident, but there is nothing that talks of the outcome. Zeez seems to be off the planet, but there is nothing to say how they left. Perhaps the product sucked and they couldn't sell any anyway? People are fooled into using something and so incur an unwanted obligation to disclose some technology unrelated to the GPL item used . That's "viral". We don't supply source, Ray! Too much hbuttle. We barely understand it ourselves.
As to the binaries, we do indeed license things. One of our users noted that many of our products were floating around on Kazaa and in the warez newsgroups, too. AFAIK, though, we haven't sued anyone in this regard. Our stuff is pretty pricey, too, so there is a good record of who bought it based on the individual S-Ns supplied, and calls to the support group are validated by that S-N. No license, no help.