[e7620]

Well, if Microsoft could, and did, port IE and Office to UNIX, why would the free and open software people have a problem in allowing more user choice? Why would they need to hard depend on software designed to be non-replaceable? With most free software organizations set up as nonprofit, we must hold them to a higher standard to ensure their continuity under the legal framework.

> No, actually you can't. You're not entitled to unless you specifically sought a license that permits it

Please take a look at 17 U.S. Code § 117.

[Xylakant]

> Well, if Microsoft could, and did, port IE and Office to UNIX, why would the free and open software people have a problem in allowing more user choice?

No, why? If they port it and even if they provide it closed source binary only, I'd still believe that an open source browser and office packet are fundamentally more in societies interest, but they're certainly entitled to build and distribute IE and Office for linux/unix/catOS and I'm not entitled to tell them to stop. Given the license of pretty much all linux distributions I think nobody would be. Just as microsoft allows the distribution of OpenOffice and Firefox for Windows. They don't have to like it.

>> No, actually you can't. You're not entitled to unless you specifically sought a license that permits it

> Please take a look at 17 U.S. Code § 117.

I'm not going to discuss american law with you, but please note that this paragraph puts severe restrictions on redistribution of copies, while the GPL does not. I'm not a law scholar, much less an american law scholar but I don't think this means what you think it does.

[e7620]

I'll tell you one thing, I know nothing about you, but this person is considered by many the best programmer in the world, one thing is certain, compared to the good done to the world, he's various levels above you and me, he's the creator of daemontools, the way it follows the unix philosophy has been an inspiration, I'll refer you to this page about software law http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html

It seems you don't read my comments, because I've edited binaries, and distributed patches of proprietary software, that's not illegal, only I didn't distribute the binary or code without permission. Let me tell you, having systemd source doesn't help me at all because it's a megalithic blob.

Is the GPL a good thing? Yes, BUT just because you license your junk with the GPL you don't deserve a Nobel peace price. You seem to think that had Hitler released a hello world program with a GPL license he would be a saint, and can't be criticized, "fork or shut up", you say?

[Xylakant]

Please note that the link you posted says exactly what I was stating:

> As long as you're not distributing the software, you have nothing to worry about.

You're not allowed to redistribute the software, modified or not. GPL or any other OSS license grants you the the permission. (and no, distributing software under GPL does not make you a saint or even a good person. See Reiser)

[e7620]

No shit, I don't distribute the GNU/Linux software either, too big and inconvenient (GB) compared to a patch (bytes).

>> GPL or any other OSS license grants you the the permission

The sysvinit alternatives that I know and use, all use an OSS license, most of them less restrictive (BSD or MIT). I use free (as in freedom) software; that's why systemd is harmful to me, always trying to create incompatibilities with other open source programs lacking a multi-million corporation backer.