Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Jul 2007 22:09 UTC, submitted by Kishe
Thread beginning with comment 256448
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
Since YOU seemed to miss it, I will point it out again. In order for the retailers to abide by the terms of the GPL it basically means that they must give recipients the same rights they themselves got when they got the GPL software, and they must not sue downstream recipients for their use of the software.
Microsoft are the ONLY party who seem to be struggling with the latter concept.
Its not hard, Microsoft. If you enable people to get a copy of this software, you cannot sue them for it, nor can you sue anyone else for using the selfsame software.
Hey Microsoft ... the GPL v3 is saving you from accusations of "entrapment". Pretty cool, hey!
Edited 2007-07-19 12:33