Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 21st Apr 2012 19:25 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 516128
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.
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:
2005-07-06
There is at least one scenario where this term (even if needlessly loaded) can be applied to GPL. Not the example parent gave, but very much in context of BSD & GPL.
An active effort insisting on using GPL, while importing large chunks of BSD licensed code, can in practice (not in the ~legal sense) sort of contaminate BSD codebase from which it started, steal the spotlight from it, so the BSD version might even start to languish and after a while it's as good as dead. Certainly it brings needless duplication of effort.
Or at least BSD (operating systems) devs grumble about such dynamics re their code and Linux, from time to time.
Edited 2012-04-28 23:12 UTC