Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > Which must be why NeXT bowed to the pressure.
> 
> I'm sure that FSF's/RMS's power of "negative marketing/PR" was the 
> reason, not legal challenges.

Sure, since large companies are known to be cuddling up to FSF/RMS.
You _are_ aware that at that time there was actually already a boycott
on Apple-related companies and products in effect by the FSF for
several years because of Apple's touch-and-feel lawsuits?

That has not impressed Apple at all, or other companies with similar
attitudes.

"negative marketing/PR" by the FSF has failed to impress large
companies all the time.  Look how much Microsoft worries about
negative marketing.  They do worry about the GPL, though.  Their "UNIX
Services for Windows" product comes with source availability for its
GPL components AFAIK.

Go figure.

> This power is in severe decline because of proliferation of open
> source ala OSI: apache, eclipse, etc.

Which must be why the incoming payments from GPL violation settlings
have been on the rise continually.

Again: fine if you want to stay in your fairy world, but it is
irresponsible to try getting others hooked on your pipe dreams.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum