On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 01:31:33PM +0100, Philippe Laporte wrote: > Hi, > Thanks for the answers. > > Yes, I mean rather Java VMs as seen as belonging to seperate categories > according to their licensing requirements. > > Yet, the information you provide seems to be in contraditction somewhat > with what they have at > http://sablevm.org/wiki/License_FAQ Microsoft for a while ran a 'Get the Facts' campaign, where their executives claimed the GPL was a cancer, and would magically infect all so called 'intellectual property' of companies, if they don't take a lot of care to avoid using GNU/Linux. SCO for a while ran a campaign where they claimed that the GPL was unconstitutional, unamerican, and aiding terrorists. You can find it on the internet, in written form. That does not make the claims above by Microsoft and SCO true. The Internet is a big place. One of its strengths is that it allows everyone to publish content easily, even content outside of their area of expertise. That puts the burden on the reader to disseminate FUD from fact, in particular if they want to make business decisions based on that information. If you are looking for facts on how the GPL works, the FSF is the authoritative source. If you are looking for facts on how the GPL works in the context of GPLd runtimes, the FSF and the authors of such runtimes are an authoritative source. If you are looking for uninformed opinions on other free software projects' licensing choices made by non-lawyers, I am sure the Internet has got some of that too. It's up to you how much credit you give it, though. cheers, dalibor topic
