On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:51:37PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > This seems like a GPL violation.
I disagree, and concur with Andreas Metzler's and Glenn Maynard's
reasoning. I believe you are misinterpreting clause 2b) of the GNU GPL.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
This does not mean that the license on any independent copyrighted material
changes; it means that as long as that independent material "contains" or
"is derived from" code under the GNU GPL, that it must accompany that GPLed
code.
Any such "contamination" by the GNU GPL is easily removed by detaching the
GNU GPL-licensed portions from the work. If they are truly independent,
this should be very easy. There is no "lingering taint" of the GNU GPL.
The only license that is on the independent work is that which was placed
on it originally.
If it's any consolation, this is a very common misconception, and one that
has been rampant on, e.g., the XFree86 mailing lists for years.
--
G. Branden Robinson | "To be is to do" -- Plato
Debian GNU/Linux | "To do is to be" -- Aristotle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | "Do be do be do" -- Sinatra
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
