On Jun 21, 2012 11:23 AM, "Wojciech Puchar" <woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: >>> >>> >> Additionally, the exceptions for using the GCC runtime library for non-GPL executables >> is limited to what hey call "eligible compilation processes", what rules out using >> proprietary GCC plugins or other combinations of core GCC functionality with non-GPL >> tooling and extensions. >> Please note that this is indeed not tested in court. Therefore, reality may turn out >> even more interesting. That's why a lawyer's answer should always be "it depends". :) > > > GNU GPL is even worse that i ever dreamed (in worst horror). > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
I have seen a few instances which are "risky" IMHO... or at least interesting to ponder.. one is a claim that GPLv3 enables the vendor to "require" the use of their trademark logo (flowplayer)... which opens up other legal issues i think, and another, i recently purchased a router, in the package was a small piece of paper stating the device includes GPL software, and if i want the source i need to write (snail mail) their legal department and explain why i want it. (d-link). but i agree the issues have not been legally decided AFAIK. anyway, i think a BSD licensed FreeBSD operating system works for me. Waitman Gobble San Jose California USA _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
