Theo Brinkman wrote: > Let me get this straight. Theo,
Good luck! These things are very difficult to get straight. I subscribe to at least one mailing list that discusses these type of issues. AFAICT, there are licenses (and combinations of licensed packages) that allow you to build binaries for yourself but not for distribution. (And one variation is a package that includes original (source?) code and a series of patches -- you (as a user) can apply the patches, but the software cannot be distributed with the patches applied.) Aside: The maillist I subscribe to is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Its primary purpose is for discussion of licenses that have been submitted for approval as OSI certified licenses. By lurking on the list, I've learned quite a few things (I think). (What I'm trying to say is that questions on some of the things I mention in the first paragraph might be considered partially off-topic if the discussion is not focused on a license submitted for approval -- they have suggested other maillists for those type discussions, but I don't recall what they were.) Hope this helps, Randy Kramer > > 1) The mplayer developers are developing software which uses various > libraries with incompatible licenses. > 2) They claim the files are allowed to exist in the same project in > *source* form. > 3) They also claim that distributing (or even *building*) the project > results in you violating some of those licenses. > 4) They tell you to go ahead and download it and build it. > 5) They apparently don't think their project violates any of those > licenses even though (by their own admission) they must have violated > these licenses hundreds of times during the development cycle.
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
