I just wanted to point out that this thread has now gone quite off topic. The original question concerned bundling GPL with EPL, not GPL with proprietary code.
Mike Milinkovich [email protected] +1.613.220.3223 -----Original Message----- From: David Woolley <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:58:51 To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution Henrik Ingo wrote: > > Yes. However, when referring to the GPL FAQ, I actually believe it > represents the common understanding of a rather large portion of the > FOSS community, not just the understanding of Stallman or perhaps > Moglen. (Granted, for many it is just that they accept whatever the Whilst Rick takes the view that the law doesn't allow the FSF to achieve its objectives, and there is a bias amongst people enquiring here towards people who want to leverage GPLed code without revealing their proprietary code. My impression is that most people who use the GPL to protect their own intellectual creations actually tend to believe that the GPL protects against commercial exploitation even more than the FSF states, or would want it to do so. > FSF says, for others it might be they don't want to argue with the > FSF, but even so, their acceptance then contributes to the common > understanding.) Hence I find it a useful though not legally > authoritative document. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
