Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:58:00 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 57 Message-ID: References: <85ca46a5-03d8-41ad-ab7e-8e5c3b781e48@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:29785 On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:15:13 -0400, Alex McDonald wrote: > on 21/04/2014 23:48:28, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 21:37:27 -0400, Alex McDonald >>> The only requirement is that the company make the source >>> code available for free. >> >> How often do they actually do that? > > If they don't, they are in breech of the GPL. > http://gpl-violations.org/about.html > So? That hasn't stopped breaches of the GPL by for-profit companies. I.e., court cases costs lots of money, fines are trivial, etc. >> I.e., they frequently hide the fact they've done so in order >> to prevent leakage of proprietary interfaces or code. > > Who is "they"? While anecdotes are nice, unsourced assertions > are just annoying. People who fail to keep up on current events and repeatedly ask for citations are annoying too... There have been a half-dozen cases mentioned in major U.S. media over the past few years of companies violating the GPL in their products. I'm sure if you search a reputable computer news website or use Google you can find them. Of course, there is a website which monitors this: http://www.gpl-violations.org/ Just dropping "gpl violation" into Google brings up mentions of: Nvidia, D-Link, Boxee, Android, Microsoft, Linksys, Cisco, Samsung, HTC, Apple, Skype, Linux, etc. Yes, you read that correctly, well over 90% of Linux distro's are in violation of the GPL too... There seems to be a variety of issues at play: -ports of GPL code to a closed source OS (Apple App store apps) -static linking with non-GPL libraries (Microsoft) -failure to release original source code (Linux distro's) -failure to release source code modifications (routers) > You seem to have a confusion over what is legal (the domain of the GPL) > and breaking a legal agreement (the domain of the courts). You're confused, or not aware of U.S. law. No license or contract defines what is legal. That only defines what the parties have agreed to, legal or not. The courts define what is legal. The court may throw out any contract or license term or add any required legal constraints. Rod Pemberton