on Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 06:23:56PM -0400, John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
>
> > the original situation was with regard to linking GPL software. when
> > you redistribute GPL software linked with other software, the other
> > software must be GPL licensed as well.
>
> No, it has to be freely distributable, not GPL. A compiled Linux
> kernel is GPL, and so are most of its parts, but some are under the
> BSD, which is fine because that is a free distribution license that
> imposes no extra restrictions above the GPL.
Pedantically, it's John's last condition that's crucial: a GPL
compatible license must impose no restrictions not present in the GPL
itself.
IANAL, TINLA, YADA.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free
Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
PGP signature
