> No, it makes it GPL'd with an additional license available if you don't like GPL
> and are willing to pay. It is a GPL restriction that one cannot integrate GPL
> software into non-GPL'd software. This makes it more free than just GPL,
> because with the possibility of obtaining a license in addition to the GPL that
> is offered here you have an opportunity to pay money rather than code as your
> contribution to the community. The money I get is spent on hiring more
> programmers to write more free software. It is my means of giving software free
> to the free software community while charging the proprietary community.
The one example of this not working is with MIT style licensing which
apparently can have GPL code integrated with. A side effect is the whole
thing becomes GPLed. But, the argument is that this isn't allowed by the
license.
> Linus accepts this, if that makes any difference toyou.
I know. And I pointed that when reiserfs gets put in the kernel, our
kernel would have to move to non-free (not offically partof the
idstribution). An attemp at a reductio, but people started talking about
clipping reiserfs from the kernel.
Related: Does anyone know of any other code in the kernel with similar
statements?
Andrew
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
