AIX blows its foot off

[James Colannino]

I didn't see any mention in the article that said the code was internal 
as opposed to external.  The way it was described (when it said that 
even if it used patented practices in code licensed under the GPL it 
would become licensed under the GPL as well) somewhat makes me think 
that it most likely is refering to internal code as it would imply that 
these patented practices were various functions in the kernel itself, 
which are a part of the Linux architecture, but I think the author of 
the article should have clarified that somewhat as many people have a 
scewed view of the GPL (thanks to M$...)

James

Jason Clinton wrote:
> Brian Densmore wrote:
> 
>> No no no no. NO! Why is it everyone falls for this stupid M$ FUD?
>>
>> The GPL says if you INCORPORATE any GPL code into your code you must
>> release your code that incorporates the GPL code under GPL. Anything
>> that makes use of external GPL code and remains clean internally of GPL
>> code is NOT required to be released under GPL. Any code that makes no
>> use of GPL code is not affected either. The GPL is not a "I've released
>> something under GPL so now all my code is infected with it" license. Oi!
> 
> 
> While that's true, that has nothing to do with what I said. To see what 
> I'm saying read it from some who's a litte more articulate on the 
> subject, Bruce Perens:
> 
> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=5456337&sid=56225&tid=123
> 
> 

-- 
The New Penguin Times: A New Linux Online Magazine
http://www.newpenguintimes.com