On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:25:07PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > "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." > > This would be accurate for the case that "your own product" incorporates > sources from OpenQM. > > Otherwise, it's irrelevant.
It's misleading. I can install OpenQM--or ask customers to--and then install whatever I want. If it's a library, I can't link against it with GPL-incompatible code, but that has nothing to do with how it was installed or what I ask people to do. > > "If you are going to distribute multiple copies of openQM within your > > company, you will probably need a commercially licensed version of > > openQM." > > This one is wierd -- but it might be true if some other assumptions > are held to be the case (such as: you don't want to provide source code > within your company, perhaps for policy reasons). > > "probably" is a weasel word. The statement is badly misleading. It doesn't matter much to me if it can be interpreted in a true way, since the only thing I really care about here is the spread of confusion about the GPL. -- Glenn Maynard
