Ah indeed, that's true. I recall that now. On Sunday, June 16, 2013, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
> > On 16 Jun 2013, at 11:52, Gregory Casamento > <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > Effectively option #2 violates the GPL anyway since, if it's an integral > part of the app and loaded as a bundle, it's still *required* by the app. > It's a legal gray area. > > Well everything is a legal gray area, because the law is always open to > interpretation/reinterpretation. > However my understanding is that providing a GPL bundle that we do not > depend upon does NOT make gnustep-base GPL'd, precisely becaause it is NOT > required by apps. > This is the same rationale as us providing an SSL bundle which uses > OpenSSL ... we don't depend on it, but we make it available. > I think having a loadable BFD bundle would be great, because we could load > it when we want a usable stacktrace to be printed out, but not bother > loading it when we don't want to do debugging. > > -- Gregory Casamento Open Logic Corporation, Principal Consultant yahoo/skype: greg_casamento, aol: gjcasa (240)274-9630 (Cell) http://www.gnustep.org http://heronsperch.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
