> That's what you claim it says, but has any court, anywhere, agreed with > you? You claim the authority of others (i.e. numerous lawyers), but I > don't believe you have that authority. You're just starting hearsay. > You've never said what lawyers and you've never told us what they > actually said.
That would be improper as you'd well know if you knew the first thing about the subject. > > I see that you have a clear political agenda, and I respect it in > principle, but you're claiming that things are so in pursuit of that > agenda when you don't *know* that they are. You don't need to stretch > any truths to spread adoption of GPL, and doing so is not respectable. Why don't you just say "you are a liar" as I assume that is what you want to say. Then I have to read less words before I find you funny. > I don't understand this, but I do understand that an essential question > being considered is whether or not Linux can participate in a market > that prohibits GPL drivers, whether explicitly, or more likely through > pressure from regulatory bodies. Doing this would be a mistake. > Probably a big one. Linux is GPL licencesed code you either follow the licence or don't use it. It's very simple. > > Don't telling people to switch to BSD, as some have done; they might do > it. Where would Linux be if embedded devices used BSD instead? Don't I don't actually care. If you want to do binary products then pick a product you have the right to do that with. > think they can't. Don't think Linux has a technical advantage. Lose > the embedded market, and that's where it would be felt first, and Linux > volumes fall by what? 50%? 90%? Would you care if servers followed? The market will ultimately decide which models of software development are the right ones for which situation. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
