Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?

[amicus_curious]

"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@XReXXIsXth.usenet.us.com> wrote in message 
news:gbbe8m$psa$1@blue.rahul.net...
> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>
> > I find the many web sites that publish descriptive "how-to" projects as
> > sample code to be much more useful than GPL stuff.  These authors seem 
> > only
> > interested in educating those who read their articles and rarely demand 
> > any
> > sort of quid pro quo.  Microsoft itself publishes gigabytes of tutorials 
> > and
> > samples for this purpose.
>
> Since you were defending the MIT license and criticizing the GPL
> license, let me ask you this:
>
> These "how-to" web sites, including Microsoft's alleged gigabytes of
> tutorials -- do they use the MIT license, thus allowing you to freely
> republish their content freely?
>
> If not, then I fail to see your point.

I don't think they use any license at all.  I have no desire to republish 
their content either.  I am only interested in learning how do do various 
things with .NET in this particular case.  These articles serve to show the 
way, nothing more.

Perhaps if I wanted to create an office automation suite of my own I would 
want to plow through OO's code or if I were interested in a web server I 
would similarly go through Apache.  The same for MySQL, PHP, and the other 
landmarks of OSS, including Linux itself.  But I don't really much care to 
do any of that, I am only interested in perhaps using these programs for 
some purpose of my own.  If they did not work, I wouldn't fool around trying 
to fix them, I would look for another program that did work.  If my need 
were unique enough and still had wider appeal, I might consider writing my 
own program and marketing it to those who could benefit from it and would be 
willing to pay me for that benefit.