e.g. gpl v3 - closed a loophole in the gpl2 which allowed you to run modified open source software as a service over the web and not share the source.
No you are thinking about the AGPL here, the GPL3 still alows you to do that The GPL v1 was written February 1989 by programmers not lawyers. In some countries it conflicted with the local laws thus making it non applicable, so it had to be changed and clarified over the years, the gist and reason still remain the same there is no change in the overall vision. Note that the GPL is as legally binding as any other license: http://gpl-violations.org/ On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:32 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
Someone who makes sense? http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/the_problems_of_open_source.htm
This is a lot of FUD and misinformation, the statement about the quality an outright lie, independent research has shown that OSS software contains less bugs than proprietary software
_______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke ------------ List info, subscribe/unsubscribe http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------
Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
-- Best Regards, Christian Ledermann <*)))>{ If you save the living environment, the biodiversity that we have left, you will also automatically save the physical environment, too. But If you only save the physical environment, you will ultimately lose both. 1) Don’t drive species to extinction 2) Don’t destroy a habitat that species rely on. 3) Don’t change the climate in ways that will result in the above. }<(((*>