closed source == GPL violation? (Score 1)

actually, last i recall there have been tarballs of the slash source kicking around, but i may have been hallucinating again. while i agree that the /. software should be open source (especially if it's "inspired" by GPLed software), calling the code "stolen" is rather reactionary. after all, if it weren't for code-reuse there wouldn't be much 'open source software'. borrowing, extending, alterating, and adapting old code is a time-honored tradition -- it's just that with OSS/Free software, the right to do this is recognized and protected. it's only amongst the "closed source", proprietary software cultures that you have a notion of code being "stolen": that is, being owned by anyone in particular. isn't OSS supposed to be about freeing us from these stupid notions of "intellectual property"? (moderators: yeah, offtopic, i know. i had to...)