On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 07:36:08PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > Is there any reason to believe that by "GPL" they mean the "GNU Public > License"?
The G in "GPL" is "General", not "GNU". (I'm sure you know this, but you said "GNU Public License" several times in this mail.) > 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. Like case #4, if this is true, the author is probably not competent. For example, "You cannot install, or ask your customer to install a GPL version of OpenQM and then install your own product unless that product is also delivered to the user under GPL or an approved variant." "If you are going to distribute multiple copies of openQM within your company, you will probably need a commercially licensed version of openQM." These statements have nothing to do with the GNU General Public License. (I won't expound on why, since I'm pretty sure that everyone listening already knows.) Maybe we should forward this to the FSF; they would probably be interested in trying to have the misinformation being spread on this page corrected (or having a note inserted that the "GPL" here is not their GPL, but I doubt that's actually the case--unless the author of this page is deliberately trying to spread confusion). Spreading false information about the GPL does significant damage to Free Software. -- Glenn Maynard
