On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:36, Erwin Rol wrote:
> One claim that was made was that a program that uses a GPL library can
> be put under any license you like, which is not true.
It may or may not be true, depending on whether an alternatively
licensed library exists (whether it is used or not) and probably
on who is doing the interpretation of whether the program becomes
a derived work just because it links to that library.
> A fourth claim was that Microsoft DLL Licenses don't for a certain
> license on your programs, which is also not true (just reread your
> Visual Studio License).
I don't think anyone claimed that. The claim was about control
of 3rd pary dlls, not necessarily created with MS products or
containing their code.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
