On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 07:46:07PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 07:36:08PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > Is there any reason to believe that by "GPL" they mean the "GNU Public > > License"? > > The G in "GPL" is "General", not "GNU". (I'm sure you know this, but > you said "GNU Public License" several times in this mail.)
Sorry about that, I meant "GNU General Public License". Anyways, I'm having more second thoughts than just about my acronym expansion. > > I can think of several possible scenarios: > > > > [1] GPL does mean "GNU Public License", but no actual source is available > > under that license. In this case, the GPL grants no rights. > > Like case #4, if this is true, the author is probably not competent. > For example, > > "You cannot install, or ask your customer to install a GPL version of > OpenQM and then install your own product unless that product is also > delivered to the user under GPL or an approved variant." This would be accurate for the case that "your own product" incorporates sources from OpenQM. Otherwise, it's irrelevant. > "If you are going to distribute multiple copies of openQM within your > company, you will probably need a commercially licensed version of > openQM." This one is wierd -- but it might be true if some other assumptions are held to be the case (such as: you don't want to provide source code within your company, perhaps for policy reasons). "probably" is a weasel word. > Maybe we should forward this to the FSF; they would probably be interested > in trying to have the misinformation being spread on this page corrected > (or having a note inserted that the "GPL" here is not their GPL, but I doubt > that's actually the case--unless the author of this page is deliberately > trying to spread confusion). Spreading false information about the GPL > does significant damage to Free Software. I'd wait a day or two, to see if someone can make better sense of this. Thanks, -- Raul