quote:
Then why when installing Lindows you are asked to agree upon the terms of an EULA?
What I'm saying is that Lindows have not violated the GPL i.e. they have not taken GPL code and incorporated it into proprietary software, which would be illegal. All the prroprietary code in Lindows is (we would assume) their own. There are GPL programs in Lindows but they're not making you agree to agree to a EULA to use those.
I agree these differences would be confusing to someone coming from a world of purely proprietary software, and I blame the open source movement for introducing this confusion. As Stallman says, this kind of thing isn't helping people prepare to resist the threats to our community, rather it's just a half hearted gesture to try and sate the consumer, and stop them from demanding their freedom.
As I said before, I don't believe we should be grateful to Apple for recognising the benefits they can reap themselves by making available the source code to their software. Even Microsoft have 'acknowledged' OSS by liberalising the terms of their 'Shared Source' licence, and again it's purely for reasons of PR and getting their bugs fixed for them.
I don't nag about 'everything'; I nag about things that are wrong. And Apple's licensing of this software is wrong. I'd be delighted if they went GPL, and I'd have absolutely nothing to complain about.