Maximilian scripsit: > Regarding point one, the GPLv3 doesn't allow for this. If it did, for > example, documents made with LibreOffice would themselves be licensed > under the GPLv3. Technically I think it would be possible for such a > licence to still be compatible with the Open Source Definition, although > I can't name a licence like that off the top of my head.
I think it would require that the recipient explicitly accept the license as a requirement to getting LibreOffice (or whatever), which would make it not Open Source. > With respect to point two, you'd need to show that the apps built using > Rapid are actually derived works. From the viewpoint of the Free > Software Foundation, they would probably see that as the apps are > completely dependent on Rapid, perhaps moreso than a software library, > the apps would therefore form "derivative works" and be licensed under > the GPL. Almost certainly not. Before open-source Java systems existed, the FSF discouraged people from writing free Java apps, but didn't deny that an app released under a free license was free. See <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.en.html>; there is no longer a Java trap, of course. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] If you have ever wondered if you are in hell, it has been said, then you are on a well-traveled road of spiritual inquiry. If you are absolutely sure you are in hell, however, then you must be on the Cross Bronx Expressway. --Alan Feuer, New York Times, 2002-09-20 _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
