"Ronald L. Chichester" wrote: > Several lawyers have addressed the issue of GPL "infection." The rule > of thumb is: if you mix GPL source code with other code to make new > binary executable, then that other source code is subject to the GPL. It's even less restrictive than that. You can link GPL code to, say, the MFCs. What you can't do is proprietary code to the GPL. Now... I'm not entirely clear on this distinction myself, but there's a certain directionality to the licence. How this all relates to interpreted Python code, I really don't know. IANAL!! -- Oliver White _______________________________________________ Freepm-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freepm-discuss
- Re: [FPM-Discuss] Re: GPL License Issues Oliver White
- Re: [FPM-Discuss] Re: GPL License Issues Tim Cook
- Re: [FPM-Discuss] Re: GPL License Issues Oliver White
- Re: [FPM-Discuss] Re: GPL License Issues Daniel L. Johnson, MD
- Re: [FPM-Discuss] Re: GPL License Issues Tim Cook
- Re: [FPM-Discuss] Re: GPL License Issues Daniel L. Johnson, MD
- Re: [FPM-Discuss] Re: GPL License Issues Adrian Midgley
- Re: [FPM-Discuss] Re: GPL License Issues Ronald L. Chichester
- Re: [FPM-Discuss] Re: GPL License Issues Ronald L. Chichester
- Re: [FPM-Discuss] Re: GPL License Issues Tim Cook
- Re: [FPM-Discuss] Re: GPL License Issues Oliver White
- Re: [FPM-Discuss] Re: GPL License Issues Ronald L. Chichester
- Re: [FPM-Discuss] Re: GPL License Issues Ronald L. Chichester
- Re: [FPM-Discuss] Re: GPL License Issues Oliver White
- Re: [FPM-Discuss] Re: GPL License Issues Tim Cook
- Re: [FPM-Discuss] Re: GPL License Issues Ronald L. Chichester
