🚀 go-pugleaf

In comp.os.linux.advocacy PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de> wrote:
[snip]
> I am assuming that Open Source software, even if it comes under the GPL,
> will contain lots of parts that are reused in closed-source programs. For
> example when I write, as a did, an input table for Japanese Cangjie,
> consisting of about 6000 simple data records, M$ developpers who find
> Cangjie interesting will just take my table and hide it behind their user
> frontends.  No legalese can prevent that.  Published-source software (such
> as even Qt, because the legal terms are of secondary importance) always
> indirectly contributes to the whole public infrastructure, by providing
> usable chunks (such as data tables) and by disclosing knowhow.

Ah!  You speak of Jim Breen and his Kdict.  I do believe Microsoft does do
just that, not to mention all the encoding methods like BIG5, KO8R, JIS, etc.
I do not believe that these are GPL'd, but rather public domain.

Wouldn't it be a rush if they *were* under the GPL?  Microsoft would
either have to make their operatiny systems free (and open source),
or for all practical purposes stop doing localizations.

Who developed this code?  Do they still technically own it?  Any way
we could persuade them to free it?

[snip]


-- 
Clancy Dalebout	| xmsho@!spam!nein!yahoo.com

I keep trying to tell my boss that no, Satan is a tool of Linux, 
	not the other way around.