• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: Re: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: R ESTTutorial)
• From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>
• Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 17:16:32 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B4C7@HQ5>; from clbullar@i... on Thu, May 23, 2002 at 04:09:20PM -0500
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B4C7@HQ5>
• Reply-to: veillard@r...
• User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i

On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 04:09:20PM -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> And of course, sellers of open source want everyone to believe 
> they don't make unpublished extensions to open 
> source software thus giving themselves closed source 
> advantages.  Spy vs Spy.

  You can take a Linux/BSD distribution examine each and every line
of running code and recompile it yourself if you want. Patches applied
to the default source release are usually easilly separated. 
  Thanks for the FUD, it's always entertaining !

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard@r...  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/

• References:
  • RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• Next by Date: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• Previous by thread: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• Next by thread: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread