Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : mschaef
Date : Thu Sep 29 2005 03:22 pm

In article <dhhccn$lq8$1@news1nwk.SFbay.Sun.COM>,
Scott Moore  <samiamsansspam@Sun.COM> wrote:
   ...
>Its a complete canard in any case. To use Red Hat's own example, "would
>you buy a car with the hood welded shut", car makers provide service
>information, allow third party parts to be sold, but DON'T provide all
>the engineering documents and drawings used to make the car, nor are
>they needed. People use cars and get them serviced by other than
>factory dealers, use non-dealer supplied parts, or do all the work
>themselves without that information.

The difference is that I can dismantle my car, replace parts (sometimes 
with totally different and/or improved parts), and generally work with 
pieces of the car at a very fine-grained level.

With canned software, it's technically challenging to do all of the above, 
and often times illegal.

-Mike
-- 
http://www.mschaef.com

.