4 ms·
Given that none of the articles referenced actually give any details about what GPL'd code was improperly used or linked, I'm still skeptical. Call me a fanboy
by kogir 17y ago
Given that none of the articles referenced actually give any details about what GPL'd code was improperly used or linked, I'm still skeptical.
Call me a fanboy but I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Show me the offending code.
Don't say "it's open source, see for yourself," because I'm not the one making the claim.
- pcc 17y agoI'm also skeptical. As I recall the GPL only requires source code to be made available to someone who has been provided the binary; ie in effect MS would only have to make source available to their customers if asked, there would be no requirement to make it available to the community at large. Last time I checked, e.g., Windriver was only making available their linux patches to customers who had purchased their embedded linux flavor, citing precisely this interpretation.
- sama 17y agoYou are a fanboy.