Re: GPL question

2007-10-13 Thread Alfred M. Szmidt
> The end result contains code from a GPL program, and the GPL > states that the whole work has to be licensed under the same > terms. I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy *contain* code from a GPL program? Yes. For example, if you go to

Re: GPL question

2007-10-13 Thread Alfred M. Szmidt
On Oct 12, 9:37 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote: > > I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy > > *contain* code from a GPL program? > > Most rational people consider it so, but

Re: GPL question

2007-10-13 Thread Alfred M. Szmidt
> How come they are allowed to do that but I am not? Are you sure they didn't get a proprietary license from the authors? It could also be the case that they haven't been caught yet... BFD is a GNU project, so no. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mai

Re: Virtually Zero-Overhead Object Management is neither free software nor open source software

2007-10-13 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
J de Boyne Pollard scrisse: [...] > AW> My assumption was that when Chris said "charge a > AW> fee for a commerical product" he meant a CLOSED > AW> SOURCE product, or at least one that wasn't itself GPL. > > That assumption, that "commercial" and "closed source" are synonyms, > is _exactly_ the

Re: GPL question

2007-10-13 Thread Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 10:34:36AM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: >On Oct 12, 9:37 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote: >> > I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy >> > *contain* cod

Re: GPL question

2007-10-13 Thread mike3
On Oct 13, 8:22 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 10:34:36AM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > >On Oct 12, 9:37 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote: > >> > I am

Re: GPL question

2007-10-13 Thread John Hasler
mike3 writes: > As for the "viral", that's just what I call it. Viral implies that it is infectious and can spread in a disease-like fashion. According to Microsoft this means that if you ever let any GPL code onto your property every piece of software you ever have or ever will write might becom

Re: GPL question

2007-10-13 Thread Mike Cox
On Oct 12, 5:37 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote: > > I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy > > *contain* code from a GPL program? > > Most rational people consider it so, but you seem to want le

Re: GPL question

2007-10-13 Thread John Hasler
Mike Cox writes: > In a previous reply, rjack says that according to copyright law (1) is > legal too "unless contractually prohibited" but he also seems to think > the GPL is not a contract so no prohibition is possible. Confusion > arises again. Rjack is a troll. There is no point in trying to

Re: GPL question

2007-10-13 Thread Miles Bader
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Rjack is a troll. There is no point in trying to make sense of what he > writes. FWIW, Mike Cox is a troll too, though perhaps a slightly more subtle one than bumblers like rjack or wigged out nutcases like Terekhov. -Miles -- "1971 pickup truck; will