-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
| I wasnt answering the original question. I was only replying to one of | the comments specifically about the possibility about including GPL'ed | code in a proprietary product. You can include it but not redistribute | the result
That's exactly what I am disagreeing with.
Think about it, if someone is selling a Windows PC and they stick a GPL'd utility/app on it to make it more attractive, you're saying that is an impossible violation??? If they include a GPL'd wallpaper they have to GPL Windows???
What about a Linux PC that is sold with the nVidia binary?
In the same way, a "proprietary product" can easily be based on a GPL'd Linux and be running bash, etc, etc, but the main logic can be in a completely proprietary app. That proprietary app can link to LGPL libraries too, so long as they provide the LGPL sources on demand. And that "proprietary product" can include other full GPL goodies, in addition to Linux itself and so on, so long as the proprietary parts are not bound to them too closely, ie, compiled to them.
Many, many embedded products are here already and are coming with a mixture of GPL'd and proprietary code. So long as the GPL parts get honoured there is NO PROBLEM.
- -Andy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCr/cPjKeDCxMJCTIRAoHpAJ45hQ+mDTx9JlLhf1j17jxFOslFygCfdVf5 /YCDxGq+94T4spL91J1kIG4= =3s83 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
