Glenn Maynard wrote: > 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.
I suspect their intent is to make it clear that you can't weasel out of the GPL's requirements by simply providing your application separately from the GPLed OpenQM, which is true. I agree that this, like many statements on their pages, are badly misleading; on the other hand, there are several things on their page that sound like they actually have a better understanding of the GPL than most, such as their explicit note that GPL != non-commercial, as well as a statement that when someone is "violating the GPL", what they are really violating is copyright law, since they are distributing without a license. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
