Understood - but your point was still incorrect.If only a #define statement were copied they wouldn't be obligated to disclose it's source.
I did not say that the only use was a #define, what I said was that would be
enough to get MS to document it if they didn't otherwise outright own the
rights. If you pick up a #define straight out of someone else's file without
change, you are borrowing their work. It is small, but you are still
borrowing. Someone may come looking because they may think it is more than a
#define especially if the define betrays functionality not publicly
documented. Not saying that is the case here so try not to read into what I
am trying to say other than acknowledging use of someone else's code can
occur even if it is some small piece, even if they aren't legally required.
OK - put your money where your mouth is. Pretend I'm a consumer. I have 2000 USD to spend and want a good PC with a good warranty with GNU/Linux on it. Find me a link to a major OEM that will ship me a PC within those specs with decent hardware and a generally recognized name (Dell, Gateway, HP, IBM...).The existance of an alternative does not make the alternative readily available. You need a readily available alternative to prove your point, and right now that doesn't exist.
I would say this is a pretty poor comment on our current position. The fact that you had issues getting what you wanted from where you wanted doesn't mean alternatives are not readily available.
I suppose... if you count code taken from *BSD and added to proprietary projects, then I'd agree... I don't personally count that as deployment, though.The only problem I see there is that the BSD people didn't have the foresight to license their code under the GNU GPL
I think this could only have hurt its use and deployment.
Many large businesses do not like GNU.Ignorance will do that.
Many people don't like it.Ignorance will do that.
I don't like it.I think you're seeing my pattern. :) (It's not meant as a personal, ad hominem attack. Ignorance is OK. Admitting that it is the case is the first step to solving the problem.)
I will never use GNU code within my code, I will rewrite what I need fromI'm curious what you did that was so difficult. Adding source code to a package is not particularly difficult.
scratch if I need it badly enough. I won't share my source, I tried, it
turned out to be more pain than it was worth.
I will use GNU licensedYawn... take take take take... what's so wrong with giving back after you take?
software because I like some of the stuff out there but I would use it even
if it weren't GNU. I don't see why I should have the right to look at the
source in order to use software. I am using the software by my choice, no
one forces me to sit at a computer.
No it isn't -- haven't you been reading? This is a BS lie about the litmus test for declaring a company a monopoly. It's a widely held misconception. Market power is what's important, not the presence of alternatives. That's what the law says.They've already been declared a monopoly.
This one always made me chuckle. The whole thing is based on the concept
that there is no commercially viable alternative to Windows.
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html