| David Given 2005-09-27, 7:03 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mike Anderson wrote:
[...]
> I'm worried that your comment will be misinterpreted, Paolo. Any new
> files they make *are* under their copyright, and they *can* license
> them as they wish. It is just that they will be useless if they aren't
> licensed under the GPL, because nobody will have a license to use them
> with the GPL library they depend on.
They won't have a license to *distribute* them unless they're GPLd --- the
authors can *use* them to their heart's content.
Remember, the GPL only applies to *distribution* of software, not use. (See
clause 0 paragraph 2.) Sorry about harping on about this, but it's a very
important point people keep getting wrong, which is leading to no end of
confusion...
- --
+- David Given --McQ-+
| dg@cowlark.com | "Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ...
| (dg@tao-group.com) | with negative results." --- Ben, from a.s.r
+- www.cowlark.com --+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDOUsWf9E0noFvlzgRAuQ2AKCCuxGU09G0
14v3keDWHfWDjE2u3gCdHowV
XynNU5AoNulnP/ZprCUanK8=
=omZc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|