Basically, the GPL-related info in the license is one big paradox. I think
that is pretty clear.
SamBC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nelson Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dave J Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "License-Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 6:23 PM
Subject: RE: NASM Licence
> Right.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave J Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 10:45 AM
> To: License-Discuss
> Subject: RE: NASM Licence
>
>
> > From: Nelson Rush [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > Julian Hall said that portions of code from NASM may be used in GPL'd
> > code,
> > but that the portions included remain under the NASM license and not the
> > GPL. He pointed to Section VII for reference.
> >
> [DJW:] That would appear to make the resulting licence
> to distribute void under clause 7 of the GPL; any
> redistribution would be a copyright violation for the
> GPLed parts.
>
> --
> --------------------------- DISCLAIMER ---------------------------------
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
> except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
>
>
> >
>
>
