On 07 Jan 2004 15:40:50 +0100, Guido Berhoerster wrote: > > * Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-07 10:21]: > > > Not only this disallows the script to be included into fvwm in one or > > another form, but I think this is not legal. Since this script depends > > on the GPL'd library FVWM::Module, it should be GPL'd as well. > > Since it is GPL-compatible it may very well be included into fvwm. The > module code itself does not contain any code from the fvwm sources but > uses the library at runtime, I would consider this as something like > dynamic linking against a library, please see > http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue38/kidd.html#free-software > (a quote from RMS) > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL (last > paragraph mentions this case) and > So in my understanding this is legal, please feel free to prove me > wrong.
Ok, I think I have no problem if the code in the script is under the new BSDL (I didn't recognize it), and the resulting script executable is covered by the GNU GPL, as quoted. However I think it may be considered good if all code that depends on the GNU GPL'd library is at least dual licensed, making derivatives under GNU GPL trivial (or interoperability trivial, for this reason). Currently my understanding is that the BSDL header should be left untouched in the derived GPL'd work, that is a nonsense. If my understanding is wrong and the BSDL header (anything under the copyright notice) may be just replaced with the GNU GPL'd header then there is no any issue. Regards, Mikhael. -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
