Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 6th May 2010 21:48 UTC
Permalink for comment 423044
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-05-06
Um... not entirely true. GPLv2 and v3 are same in that regard. GPL does not forbid you to distribute proprietary programs in with distributions; lots of distributors did that. If forbids you to add proprietary extensions to the GPL'd Program.
Distribution is counted as "Aggregate Work" not the "Program". Firefox is the "Program".
Main reason why Canonical (and also Mozilla) does not distribute non-free software is good ethics and ideology. As well as the technical reasons: if you do not have source, you can not fix bugs.