On May 7, 3:51 am, Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Nonsense. They could be more than willing to contribute their > > patches, but aren't willing to accept the GPL's limitation to being > > used only in open source packages. > > Oh, I see what you mean--I'm considering any derived work to be a > patch, which is maybe an overbroad use of that term. If they are > willing to contribute their patches in that sense, the GPL shouldn't > be a problem. If they want to just send back small scraps of > improvement while incorporating the GPL'd program into a closed > program, the GPL is doing its job if it prevents that.
I think what I said is applicable to derived works, if the idea is to derive another non-open-source work in turn. I.e., someone might be motived to create a derived work of some code with the expectation of using it in their non-open-source project, but if it's GPLed they can't do that, so they probably wouldn't bother. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
