In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Raul Miller writes:
>Charles Briscoe-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure that a program must be either entirely GPLed,
>> or contain no GPLed parts.
>
>More precisely, the non-gpled parts must not have terms which prevent
>compliance with the gpled parts.
Before they are incorporated into the GPLed program, yes, but not
afterwards. Please read the "viral clause" of the GPL, clause 2(b):
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License.
Note "this Licence", not "a licence which does not have terms which
prevent compliance with this Licence". Thus, as I read it, to be
distributable, any program must be either GPLed in its entirety, or
contain no GPLed parts.
I'm not a law professional, though, and I don't know how compilation
copyright interacts with this. Compilation copyright may justify your
position; it might be the case that the licensing of the whole can be
different from the licensing of its parts.
--
Charles Briscoe-Smith
White pages entry, with PGP key: <URL:http://alethea.ukc.ac.uk/wp?95cpb4>
PGP public keyprint: 74 68 AB 2E 1C 60 22 94 B8 21 2D 01 DE 66 13 E2
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
