OT: Two ways Microsoft sabotages Linux desktop adoption

[Mike McCarty]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 23:36, Mike McCarty wrote:
> 
> 
>>One interesting thing I just noticed for the first time (or perhaps
>>noticed again after a few years, and didn't remember). It states that
>>section 6 states the terms for "distribution of such executables". So
>>one might argue that if one links such an executable on his own machine
>>by linking it at load time, but does not distribute it, then 6 has no
>>force, since it is not distributed.
> 
> 
> There has never been any question that you can 'use' GPL'd works
> that you have modified yourself even if the modification
> involves adding non-GPL'd components.  
> 
> 
>>In any case, no corporation is going to use anything which is GPL or
>>LGPL and risk being taken to court.
> 
> 
> They do use it, they just can't distribute it - not even if they
> want to give it away.  Which means that the rest of us won't
> ever have it.

Erm, I used a contraction of the clause "use ... in a commercial product".

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!