Well, speaking of strawmen...
Yes, there are people not following the terms of the license. Just like there are people not following the terms of other licenses.
But conflating those people with the people who are following the terms of the license -- people who say "Sorry, I can't use GCC, so I have to go play in the LLVM sandbox over here, and btw, if you want me to be able to contribute to projects in the future, the GPL is a non-starter" -- thinking or representing that those saying they cannot use your code are the same people as those illegally using your code -- that is just wrong.
First of all, gstoddart didn't conflate people who "whine" about the restrictions of the GPL (whether they violate the license or not) with those who respect it and avoid GPL code on principle and in good faith. He only spoke of the former, who indeed want to "steal" GPL code whether or not they actually do.
Second, compiling your code with GCC does not infect your source-code, or the compiled binary, with the GPL. Unless you static-link to a GPL library, but that's avoided easily by linking dynamically.
That was exactly my point, per my speculation:
Or do they just dispose of them so that they stay out of the after-market?
What next? "I feel like peeing, what should I do?" post on slashdot?
Use the empty toner cartridges.
Doh! And I thought you needed a toner refill kit. Who knew?
Damn, that's a nice program. Kudos to Brother.
I wish I could find something on their website that states what they actually do with the returned toner cartridges. All I could find is this:
We will evaluate the opportunities to recycle, reuse, reduce, refuse and reform resources throughout the life cycle of our products.
My emphasis. This is not a commitment to recycle. It's feel-good corporate-speak.
Do they actually dismantle and recycle them? Do they refurbish them, or sell them to a refurbisher? Or do they just dispose of them so that they stay out of the after-market?
I'm sorry to be cynical. Brother may very well be acting as a good corporate citizen. But when I don't see explicit mention of their actions, I start to wonder what they are.
...I can see that a lot of people are breaking the first rule of Bacterial Fight Club!
This isn't a real problem in that the GPL sneaks in and alters other code licenses when nobody is looking.
This is a problem in that people want to use the GPL code in a way which is incompatible with the GPL, and then they become whiny idiots about how unfair the GPL is to them.
Correct. Like I said, the "infection" happens through consent, not by accident.
It's a lot simpler than that. Apple wants (a certain amount of) control over what they distribute in the App store. The GPL doesn't let them have it.
I haven't read up on exactly what beef they have with the app store's terms
Don't worry, An AC on this thread already provided a useful link.
I bet that the corporate, proprietary world has done more good for free software than free software has.
After all, someone has to pay the salaries of programmers, right?
Sure. But there are other ways to pay programmers than by the sale of proprietary software.
I've personally been involved in huge numbers of projects where developer's exposure to open source projects, within the context of a proprietary-only workplace, has enabled the skills and exposure to those open source projects, with said developers going on to work on derivative, open source projects in their spare time.
And you don't think the benefit flows in the other direction too?
Great post. Moderators, take note.
I would add one thought: the GPL is indeed viral, but in the sense of HIV, rather than, say, influenza. You need to get "intimate" with GPL code to be "infected" by it. The level of intimacy that causes infection varies with context, but it happens through consent, not by accident.
Correct. However, that doesn't fulfill the file-sharing part of the OP's requirements.
I have used TortoiseSVN when I needed to work in Windows. I come to praise it, not to bury it. The integration with Windows Explorer is especially good. If you simply must use Windows, then TortoiseSVN is worth a look.
Whether grimmjeeper understands the difference is irrelevant. He doesn't care. He's being disingenuous. He pulled the phrase "None of these findings are certain" out of context, so as to imply the study should not be trusted.
If one examines the context (per my other post in this thread) one will see that the researchers came to two probable, but not certain conclusions: that Bush would have prevailed in a limited recount, and that Gore would have prevailed in a state-wide one.
TortoiseSVN is a Windows-native client for SVN. You still need to connect it to a Subversion service running somewhere.
Now burn a Confederate flag to celebrate and let's move on.
Just take the Confederate flag off public flagpoles and put it in a museum, where it belongs. Individuals can still display it, but I won't be calling any of them my friends.
From [hondo77's] link:
None of these findings are certain.
In context, the "findings" were that Bush probably would have won even with a limited recount, but Gore probably would have won with a broader statewide recount of disputed ballots.
None of these findings support your claim that Bush's lead got larger with each recount.