nalysis, please take it up on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks.
>James
I don't agree. The GPL only allows integration with GPL products. This
is just saying that other licenses are available from the author to allow
use in non-GPL systems. This isn't putting any restriction that isn't
already in the GPL.
Andrew Lenharth
> I think I understand what the license is trying to say (that non-GPL
> licenses are available from the author, if you don't want to be bound
> by the terms of the GPL?), but the way it's currently worded is
> incredibly sloppy and fails the DFSG.
Then we have an interesting problem. This has al
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > I think I understand what the license is trying to say (that non-GPL
> > licenses are available from the author, if you don't want to be bound
> > by the terms of the GPL?), but the way it's currently worded is
> > incredibly sloppy and fails the DF
> > > I think I understand what the license is trying to say (that non-GPL
> > > licenses are available from the author, if you don't want to be bound
> > > by the terms of the GPL?), but the way it's currently worded is
> > > incredibly sloppy and fails the DFSG.
> >
> > That blurb simply states
> No, it makes it GPL'd with an additional license available if you don't like
> GPL
> and are willing to pay. It is a GPL restriction that one cannot integrate GPL
> software into non-GPL'd software. This makes it more free than just GPL,
> because with the possibility of obtaining a license in
nalysis, please take it up on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks.
>James
I don't agree. The GPL only allows integration with GPL products. This
is just saying that other licenses are available from the author to allow
use in non-GPL systems. This isn't putting any restriction that isn&#x
> I think I understand what the license is trying to say (that non-GPL
> licenses are available from the author, if you don't want to be bound
> by the terms of the GPL?), but the way it's currently worded is
> incredibly sloppy and fails the DFSG.
Then we have an interesting problem. This has a
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > I think I understand what the license is trying to say (that non-GPL
> > licenses are available from the author, if you don't want to be bound
> > by the terms of the GPL?), but the way it's currently worded is
> > incredibly sloppy and fails the D
> > > I think I understand what the license is trying to say (that non-GPL
> > > licenses are available from the author, if you don't want to be bound
> > > by the terms of the GPL?), but the way it's currently worded is
> > > incredibly sloppy and fails the DFSG.
> >
> > That blurb simply states
> No, it makes it GPL'd with an additional license available if you don't like GPL
> and are willing to pay. It is a GPL restriction that one cannot integrate GPL
> software into non-GPL'd software. This makes it more free than just GPL,
> because with the possibility of obtaining a license in a
10 matches
Mail list logo
