[Wolves] FOSS, who's it for? Us or them?

[dick_turpin]

Christopher Fox wrote:
> Oh c'mon. "nicked the code for their own purposes" is a bit
> pejorative, isn't it?
>   
If you say so
> Or are you actually accusing Google of failing to comply with the
> terms of the licence for the code they've used?
>   
Nope, the term 'nicked' was meant as a carpet statement, as for the 
license I don't give a flying fig I'm talking about a Morals if anyone 
cant or refuses to see the point on those terms then thats up to them, 
I'm fully aware that life is not fair. All I believe is that it should 
have been released under Linux 1st or both platforms at the same time.
> Otherwise I don't see the problem. Some people wrote some code and
> released it under a particular licence, and some other people used the
> code did precisely what they were requested to do in that licence. So
> what?
>   
Well if you don't see the problem thats why I'm pointing it out and why 
I'm flogging this boring thread to death.

As I say forget about licenses, source code the fact you can do the pain 
in the arse job of compiling it yourself, it was a simple moral question 
about FOSS in general using Google as an example.
Some poor individual spent time writing the code hopefully within the 
Linux community they released the code probably expecting other Linux or 
FOSS people to use it and or improve on it. To me given that the 
community has prided itself on not being Microsoft and being free it 
would have been 'the right thing to do' and give it back to us 1st. Its 
no big deal its not going to stop me eating tonight and I have no 
intention of using the pointless steaming pile desktop real-estate waste 
even if it does come out as a Linux version.

I have learn't one thing from this thread the next time Microsoft defend 
a patent or License woe betide any complaints, I'll be straight into the 
Archive for mails saying "Its in the License".