3 ms·
But the "viralness" of the GPL applies to modified versions of the covered work, and this is a discussion of the distribution of GPLv3-licensed software in Mac
by agwa 12y ago
But the "viralness" of the GPL applies to modified versions of the covered work, and this is a discussion of the distribution of GPLv3-licensed software in Mac OS X, which is not a modified work. Thus the "viralness" does not apply and throwing out the phrase "GPL3-infected software" adds nothing to the discussion and only stokes flames.
- Sanddancer 12y agoHowever, there are additional legally questionable terms of distribution which the GPL3 imposes which remain open legal questions. For example, how inclusive is the patent grant? A lot of companies don't want to go anywhere near that minefield, even with using GPL3 software internally, which suggests that it's a much bigger problem than the FSF doesn't want to discuss.
- icebraining 12y agoA lot of companies don't want to go anywhere near that minefield, even with using GPL3 software internally, which suggests that it's a much bigger problem than the FSF doesn't want to discuss. Nonsense. The GPL terms have never applied to internally used software. Besides, you make it sounds like discouraging companies that live on proprietary software & patents from using GPLv3 licensed code is somehow an unintended and unwanted consequence. The whole point of the GPL is to prevent proprietary software from capitalizing on Free Software. That they won't use it internally either sounds like a feature, not a bug.