On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 11:23:33PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > I strongly suggest that you read the following two web pages: > http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource/index.htm > and the accompanying faq: > http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource/faq.htm
Is there any reason to believe that by "GPL" they mean the "GNU Public License"? By this, I don't mean private email -- I mean, is there source available with the GPL associated with it? I can think of several possible scenarios: [1] GPL does mean "GNU Public License", but no actual source is available under that license. In this case, the GPL grants no rights. [2] Similar, but some sources have that license and some don't. In this case, where the sources form complete programs, I'd think the GPL terms hold, and where sources are not licensed under the GPL or they can't be made to form programs, the GPL terms probably do not hold. [3] "GPL" stands for something else -- perhaps with some license clauses in common with the gnu license, but where something else is really going on. [4] "GPL" means "GNU Public license" and all sources are readily available under the GPL. In this case, the author of those pages is probably not competent. -- Raul
