The assumption that "everyone has" Microsoft Windows is incorrect-
the last MS OS I bought and used at home was DOS 3.3. It is also
the case that, if I am distributing a peice of free/open-source software
for Windows, I am not legally able to distribute a copy of Windows to
run it on. What is the definition of "with the distribution"? I would
interpret that as "shipped with the code".
In both cases, the free/open-source software depends upon another
peice of software which is proprietary.
Another question this raises- since there is not currently a free/open-
source Java runtime environment, is it currently "evil" to write
free/open-source Java programs? What about Visual Basic?
> The purpose of the GPL is to keep software free within the definition
of
> the
> GPL. Software that depends on something that isnt generally and freely
> available (free GPL not free financial) to function is not really
free.
So the free/open-source software that depends upon MS Windows is
not really GPL-able?
For what it's worth, I haven't made up my mind about the whole
Qt vr.s GTK+ issue.
Brian
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html