On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 08:29:00PM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote: > The problem here is that we can't distribute it under the terms of the GPL > (read the kde announcement) while they say it is plain GPL, so they say > they can include other people's GPL-ed stuff. glibc2 doesnt have a > contradictory licence like this.
True. But Ulrich could have used code that is copyrighted in a way it doesn't work with GPL. Or let me use another example, how can we be sure the author of nedit, xv, ... did not use some GPLed code? > Did you see it written down? :) GPL forbits it, unless explicitly > stated in the licence. And when we're given permission to distribute it in > written form (it should be part of the licence or something) then it will > be clear it is not exactly GPL, though it is open source. I see what you mean. The have to give that, yes. But a public statement is enough. There is no need to write it down in the same file IMO. Michael -- Dr. Michael Meskes | Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go SF49ers! Senior-Consultant | business: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Go Rhein Fire! Mummert+Partner | private: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Use Debian Unternehmensberatung AG | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GNU/Linux!