-----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. | | | Talk to a lawyer if you arent one. The questions and answers related to | the licenses in Red Hat Magazine was reviewed by the Red Hat counsel
Yeah -- and it shows: I completely agree with what they said.
The application of that answer which relates to one program with GPL code "included within it" to all cases of "proprietary products" which may interface to GPL code in different ways is what's wrong.
- -Andy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCr/o1jKeDCxMJCTIRAveLAJ0cMp3+M2uO8DVtpZbraQLILZS/jQCfRY0Z gnRRQ0Xt9M9yQrmfyIJOD0A= =UHLQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
