Re: GPL question

What I glean is, yes i can, from the user's perspective, "include" a GPL'd software within my own proprietary software, and NOT be forced to release my source code? (see previous for what i mean by "include") As John said, you cannot be forced; either you accept the GPL or you don't,

Re: GPL question

me writes: > What I glean is, yes i can, from the user's perspective, "include" a > GPL'd software within my own proprietary software, and NOT be forced to > release my source code? You cannot be forced to release your source code at all. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwo

Re: GPL question

can we all please stop talking in parables and references to topics we may not all share the detailed background knowledge of? I'd like a straight answer with the entire answer within the text. is the GPL basically not enforceable assuming you "work around" it technically by the aforementioned me

Re: GPL question

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> Then you are not copying or distributing foo and so its license >> does not impinge upon you. > > Well, doesn't this just seem like a total legal loophole in the GPL? > What if i don't even ask the user to press a button, what if i just, > upon install, as part of the

Re: GNU shirt

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: [using his "a-la RMS" totally moronic tool in reply to FSFer wjsullivan] > >> You might want try and check https://www.fsf.org/order/ > >FSF doesn't have that particular shirt anymore, but there are some >other good ones. Yeah, such as the GNU GPL vaporwar

Re: GNU shirt

> You might want try and check https://www.fsf.org/order/ FSF doesn't have that particular shirt anymore, but there are some other good ones. The URL is actually . No, it isn't. http://order.fsf.org redirects to https://www.fsf.org/order.

Re: GNU shirt

> -John Sullivan Hey FSFer, shirts aside, any chance to see your 2006 forms pretty soon? http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/8557.htm I'm really interested in your 2006 expenses... especially related to (apparently never ending) GPLv3 saga. ;-) regards, alexande

Re: GPL question

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] > you can totally blow off the GPL and treat it like LGPL?? -- [...] sections of the LGPL are an impenetrable maze of technological babble. They should not be in a general-purpose software license. [...] The LGPL concedes that the GPL is a better, more approp

Re: GPL question

John Hasler wrote: [...] > US law says that if you own a lawfully made copy of a work you can sell it > or otherwise dispose of it without permission of the copyright owner. Note > that a copy is a _tangible object_ such as a book, a CD, a floppy, or a > hard drive. However, this bit of law has

Re: GPL question

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3) [17 USC 106(3)], the > > owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this > > title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the > > authority of the copyright owner, to sell or