Re: GPL traitor !

[Hadron]

Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> writes:

> In article <58_Ll.37296$9a.27249@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
>  Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Nobody can honestly not understand the main meanings of the GPL.
>
> Is it OK under GPL to release a plug-in for a GPL program, if the plugin 
> is under a license that is not compatible with GPL?
>
> Is it OK under GPL to release a GPL plug-in for a program that is under 
> a license that is not compatible with GPL?  E.g., could you release a 
> GPL plug-in for Word?
>
> If there are two libraries that perform the same functions, but with 
> different interfaces, and one library is under GPL, and the other is 
> under a GPL-incompatible license, is it OK to distribute code that can 
> be compiled to use either library?  You would not be distributing either 
> library--just your code, and telling the user to obtain (if they don't 
> already have it) whichever library they prefer, and compile for that.
>
> Would it be OK for Comcast to use GPL code in their DVR?  Note that 
> their DVR stops functioning if you are not hooked up to their system or 
> your account is not in good standing. 

As usual COLA's #1 arsekisser has run to someones defence without having
a clue about the subject in hand. But being a closed source developer,
what can we expect?

-- 
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller