[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?

From: amicus_curious
Subject: Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:42:35 -0400

"Rahul Dhesi" <> wrote in message news:gbbe8m$psa$
"amicus_curious" <> writes:

I find the many web sites that publish descriptive "how-to" projects as
sample code to be much more useful than GPL stuff. These authors seem only interested in educating those who read their articles and rarely demand any sort of quid pro quo. Microsoft itself publishes gigabytes of tutorials and
samples for this purpose.

Since you were defending the MIT license and criticizing the GPL
license, let me ask you this:

These "how-to" web sites, including Microsoft's alleged gigabytes of
tutorials -- do they use the MIT license, thus allowing you to freely
republish their content freely?

If not, then I fail to see your point.

I don't think they use any license at all. I have no desire to republish their content either. I am only interested in learning how do do various things with .NET in this particular case. These articles serve to show the way, nothing more.

Perhaps if I wanted to create an office automation suite of my own I would want to plow through OO's code or if I were interested in a web server I would similarly go through Apache. The same for MySQL, PHP, and the other landmarks of OSS, including Linux itself. But I don't really much care to do any of that, I am only interested in perhaps using these programs for some purpose of my own. If they did not work, I wouldn't fool around trying to fix them, I would look for another program that did work. If my need were unique enough and still had wider appeal, I might consider writing my own program and marketing it to those who could benefit from it and would be willing to pay me for that benefit.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]