fun with GPL

[Scott Elcomb]

On 9/5/07, D. Hugh Redelmeier <hugh-pmF8o41NoarQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> In /., the rep responded to my Forum posting.  My favourite bit:
>
>     I am struck that one of the people giving me the most grief about
>     the GPL code doesn't even own our product. Apparently he learned
>     what he knows by downloading the software, inspecting the
>     binaries, and since he didn't actually ever install the software,
>     he didn't have to view/accept the EULA or feel bound by its terms.
>     Interesting. Is there an official slashdot stance on that?
>
> [He is refering to me as giving him grief.]
>
> An official /. stance?  What a concept.

Yeah, I just read that too; been paying attention to "the story" on
and off throughout the day.  I was tempted to reply to his comment in
your defense, but decided I'll continue to wait it out a bit.  (The
story hasn't surfaced from the Firehose yet, and I'm not really sure
how to articulate my thoughts...  Maybe tomorrow.)

> Not being allowed to "reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile" GPLed
> software seems wrong.

Indeed, this was the part that made me think /. would be the place to
bring it out in the open.  That said, they appear to at least be
starting work towards compliance - who knows how big the company is or
how much "priority" it'll be assigned.

Two things that really got my attention though, was the regular
references to Microsoft on their website - and how often links to
pages within the site break.  I ran into the broken links a couple
times but won't draw the problems out.  Maybe I'll send a note along
in an effort to "improve FOSS community relations."  For now though
I'm just in wait-and-see mode.

-- 
  Scott Elcomb
  http://www.psema4.com/
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists