Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?

[amicus_curious]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message 
news:WIsCk.309$F%4.308@fe097.usenetserver.com...
> amicus_curious wrote:
> > Can you conceive of any instance of that?
>
> I dunno. Maybe some code generation stuff from the
> inside of GCC to implement some JIT compilation?
> Maybe some of the GIMP's image manipulation code?
> Maybe some video codecs?
Has anyone ever tried to do that?  I cannot find any such case.

> > Perhaps, but there is never likely to be any need for that.
>
> Yet, as the various GPL enforcement actions demonstrate,
> many companies do use and distribute GPLed software. So
> they think there's a need even if you don't. I suppose
> you think there's a difference between distributing entire
> programs unchanged and incorporating a portion into a new
> work, but I would claim that if an entire work is useful
> then parts of it could be useful as well.

As I said, I don't think that anyone is yet impressed with these 
demonstrations.  The Busy Box stuff seems to be a silly egomaniac effort to 
get casual users to pay some homage to the author who seems to be spending a 
lot of time and money to just look foolish.  Other cases have been similar. 
I believe that one of the wireless router makers used Linux in their product 
and were so chastised by the FSF that they abandoned Linux entirely in their 
product lines.  Linux is free of cost for anyone who wants to do their own 
support, but it is also easily avoided and not necessary for any situation, 
particularly where you are just going to be harassed by the cultists.