[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
>
>> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I have thus, even with STENOG included, satisfied the terms of the
>>> INVERT license.
>>>
>>> Now, there is a potential problem. Remember that scripting language
>>> mentioned before? If someone were to write a script that used both
>>> INVERT and STENOG, and then distribute that script, there might be a
>>> problem. But that's an issue for another thread.
>>>
>>> This is no different from perl/python/whatever modules under different
>>> licenses.
>>
>> I think this is a quite reasonable summary of the situation. I will
>> point out that further distributors who wish to distribute AIE and
>> INVERT will essentially be bound by the GPL with regards to AIE, even
>> though it is under the MIT/X11 license: they received it under the
>> terms of the GPL, not under the terms of the X11 license.
>
> *If* the program is derived from the plugin, which it isn't, since the
> program existed first. Besides the GPL says this:
I wasn't clear about what I meant, I'm sorry: when distributing
AIE+INVERT, INVERT is under the GPL, AIE+INVERT is a derivative work
of INVERT, and so must be treated as under the GPL, and so AIE, in the
context of AIE+INVERT, must be treated as under the GPL.
> These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
> identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
> and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
> themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
> sections when you distribute them as separate works.
Yes, if you pull AIE out separately and distribute it alone, you don't
need to provide source.
> BTW, what's up with gnu.org?
>
> --
> Måns Rullgård
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
