On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 11:30:06PM +0300, Oron Peled wrote: > On Monday 09 May 2005 21:34, Yedidyah Bar-David wrote: > > Actually, MS did distribute GPLed software. NT Resource kit contained > > perl. IIRC with sources. I don't know if recent RKits continue this > > tradition. > > 1. FALSE: perl license is not GPL (it's under the Artistic License)
It's actually dual-licensed, either GPL or artistic, at your option, as far as I know. I cannot say I fully understand either, but choosing the artistic license would still require providing sources or changing the executable name (which they didn't do), at least as far as I understand. > 2. TRUE: MS does distribute GPL software (the "Services For Unix") > with the sources as required. That's a bit weird - why didn't they take BSD sources? > > Let's all stick to facts please. Yes, I agree. The point I wanted to make is that this isn't hypothetical. -- Didi ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
