First, I won't state that Gates is "anti-GPL" or "anti-Linux" (although that is obvious) and hence is a wacko. That's too easy. Just because someone is against something doesn't make them a wacko. I can't claim that Gates' doesn't understand the GPL, for he most certainly does. His infamous "Halloween" documents proves that, and even laid out his plans for attacking Linux and the GPL. Such plans have recently been put into effect with as much vigor, spin, FUD and PR push as Gates can muster or buy. His "Pac-Man" press release is just another shot in his campaign.

Implying that GPL will 'eat up' other software projects. hehehe... right.
There are more software projects, both GPL, Opens Source and commercial blooming under Linux than for any other platform. Survivability is the reason. None will get eaten alive by the big gorillia.

Gates also says commercial companies can not 'use' GPL software... hehehe... right.

Netcraft says "stats.zone.com" is running Apache on top of Linux 2.2.2.
Stats.zone.com is, of course, a Microsoft webstite. So, Gates himself is using GPL software! Can we say 'hypocrite' children?

I think what he is saying is that commerical companies can not encorporate GPL code into their projects the way HE did FreeBSD code (ftp and other stuff). Doing so would require HE give HIS source code modifications back to the community in the same spirit that He would use what community makes availabe to HIM: freely and under the GPL to ensure continued free availabilty. In fact, the spirit of the GPL is to prevent hijacking of other peoples work and encorporating it into his propriatary software. Not being able to do that is what Gates is complaining about.

But, a lot of commerical companies are finding that they can use GPL by wrapping their access to it with CORBA clients and servers, which allows them to keep their 'intellectual property' propriatary, and still use GPL stuff. What they don't do is modify the GPL applications themselves, if they want to keep their "IP" propriatary. Doing that without returning the modified source to the community is what the GPL prohibits.

As far as GPL being a 'Pac-Man' or a 'virus'... no one is forced to use GPL because GPL software is not in a monoply position and cannot become a monoply, by its very nature. This is unlike a virus, (or quietly 'extended' code) which can infect a person (computer) without that person being aware the infection is occuring. Further, any one can 'embrace' GPL and even 'extend' it. But, the GPL prevents anyone from 'extending' it and keeping the extensions propriatary, thereby 'extinguishing' the competition. Not so with closed source software.

So, in what software does the 'Pac_Man' (or 'viral') behavior reside? When a 3rd party software vendor publishes a very popular program and is making good revenue on it, who is being "Pac-Man" when they bundle the equivilent of that 3rd party product into their OS? Even if it is inferior, as IE was to Netscape for example, the fact that it comes bundled 'free' with the OS means that the 3rd Party software vendor just got eaten alive, Pac-Man style. Stacker found out about it when they noticed that their code appeared as MS's file compression utility. ICQ is now feeling it. It has happened so many times before, and without court intervention it most certainly will happen again. On a level playing field the GPL and Open Source will survive and prosper because I don't think Gates' campaign will have too much effect. Most can see the obvious contracdictions between what is says and what he is forced to do. (IF he could economically replace Apache & Linux he would. He tried it at HotMail using NT and was not effective, and is only partially effective using W2K.) What has me concerned is the poltical influence his billions can have on greedy politicos in most countries. So, the old adage is true: The price of FREEDOM is enternal vigilence.

Now, will the REAL Pac-Man please stand up!
That's right audience, it is not GPL, is it Mr. Gates!