3 ms·
There is a big difference between open source and the GPL. Open source is loosely defined as allowing access to the source. GPL is a license designed to force o
by bradleyland 16y ago
There is a big difference between open source and the GPL. Open source is loosely defined as allowing access to the source. GPL is a license designed to force openness in a viral fashion. I'm not opposed to the GPL philosophy, but anyone who is surprised that someone like Microsoft would want to avoid GPL'd software on their platform is kidding themselves. This is especially true with regard to the GPL v3. The goal of the GPL is to aggressively expand the protection of "free" software. We're talking the RMS definition of free, which is threatening to lots of companies; not just Microsoft.
- tbrownaw 16y ago> anyone who is surprised that someone like Microsoft would want to avoid GPL'd software on their platform is kidding themselves It probably isn't even that they particularly care about avoiding the GPL, so much as that GPLv3 intentionally forbids distribution for use in locked-down devices (which, contrary to all reason, apparently is not considered to count as discriminating against a field of endeavor...).
- jzoidberg 16y agoThe problem here is that the language in the agreement is much broader than just GPLv3 or even GPL.