> The danger here is that Microsoft may not be seeking to force people to pay royalties.
> They may instead be happy with "the GPL software is now contraband".
Uhm, that was the point of the article in the first place.
FWLIW, it seems to me that it makes the source undistributible. Nothing about delivering binary only versions of the program. And even if the GPL did say you can't distibute bin only packages it doesn't matter 'cause the whole patent thing blew it all to hell anyway. If this happened to me I'd just say fuck-it and pump out binary packages for every concievable platform I could make.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:MAD provision in GPL
Posted by: Joe Klemmer on July 20, 2004 09:50 PM> They may instead be happy with "the GPL software is now contraband".
Uhm, that was the point of the article in the first place.
FWLIW, it seems to me that it makes the source undistributible. Nothing about delivering binary only versions of the program. And even if the GPL did say you can't distibute bin only packages it doesn't matter 'cause the whole patent thing blew it all to hell anyway. If this happened to me I'd just say fuck-it and pump out binary packages for every concievable platform I could make.
#