On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 11:40:39PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 09:35:20PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> [I don't expect it's reasonable for the GPL to]
> > > change in a fashion where modifications to a part of a program can't be
> > > distributed under the GPL.
> > >
> > > Nor do I expect it's reasonable to expect the GPL to change in a fashion
> > > which would allow Troll to re-release GPLed code under whatever license
> > > they choose.
> > >
> > > You'll note that your suggestion would have to be equivalent to one of
> > > these cases.
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 05:46:00AM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
> > I don't see how... I didn't suggest allowing GPL code or its
> > modifications to be relicenses as any Free license, only that it can
> > linked to it.
>
> QPLed code can't be distributed under the GPL. Code which is linked
> into the program is part of the program. What part of that don't you
> understand?
I can't see how it would allow Troll to re-release GPL code under the
QPL, or (more to the point, as I've agreed that the QPL should not
considered a Free license) how anyone could re-release GPL code under a
different Free license other than the GPL.
Anyhow, if you consider any Free license a "good enough" license than
additions or mofifications to your code under such a license are also
ok.
> --
> Raul
>
- Adi Stav
