> 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
