"Humberto Massa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@ 26/09/2005 13:30 : wrote Florent Bayle :
Le Lundi 26 Septembre 2005 17:21, Humberto Massa a écrit :
[...]
And it's not GPL-compatible at all.
How so? The only thing that seems to be a problem to me is this line:
The Standard Version of the Library may be distributed as part
of a collection of software, provided no more than a reasonable
copying fee is charged for the software collection.
The other parts allow free distribution of non-modified version, and simply
require them to b freely available, which code under the gpl certainly
allows.
To go point by point beginning with the last:
8. I did not read this too closely, but probably GPL compatible.
7. AFAIK gpl compatible
6. This is probably intended to be gpl compatible, but there is a very
slight chance that it may be construed to prevent modified versions from
outputting object code that contains some code copyrighted by a party other
than the user.
5. Definately GPL compatible (much less restrictive than FSF claims gpl to
be.)
4. If 4.a allows Distributing modifications under the GPL, (which it seems
to allow) then it is GPL compatible
3. Definately GPL compatible [Does not restrict versions with offical patch
fixes]
2. Problematic, however the definition of "Reasonable copying fee", implies
that this clause shall not be inforced.
1. Definately GPL compatible.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
