All this GPL stuff is so much BS. Copyright works because governments recognise it, in fact one of the things the UN was set up to supervise was... yes you've guessed it copyright. Some a*hole can't just invent copyleft and expect it to have the same legal weight as copyright. Oh yes I forgot they've thrown up a smoke screen by devising the GPL, which in my mind holds even less water. Firstly, here in the UK, you cannot supply goods or services and then apply restrictions after the fact. Providing all the source code and then saying "actually you can now only use it the way I say you can" is a BIG no no. Secondly, if anyone were mad enough to try to enforce GPL through litigation, the most they could hope to win are damages. Can someone please explain to me how the original authors of the software have incurred a financial loss because an individual did not respect GPL. I mean the original authors are getting zero finiancial compensation for the code they have made public so exactly how much are they loesing if someone else derives a work from theirs and will not share his source, let me see 0 times 1,000,000 - yep still ZERO!!! And what REALLY gets up my nose is the argument that having access to the source means the user can fix it. Please, give me a break. Having access to the source actually means that you have a garantee that you can't be charged for minor fixes made by someone else. Who in their right mind is going to spend weeks trying to understand how GCC works in order to fix a bug in their own program. What they will actually do is try to figure a work-around Regards Sergio Masci -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist