John Summerfied wrote:
[snip]
If I employ a BSD-style licence, then you can choose to use a similar
licence yourself, to use a proprietary licence and to not provide your
source, or even to distribute _your_ software, even as a derived work,
under the terms of the GPL.
If, on another hand, I grant you use under the terms of the GPL, then
you are still free to write your software, but if you link your program
with mine (isn't that what the headers are for?), then any distribution
you do must be under the terms of the GPL, and you must (if asked)
produce the source on demand.
AFAIK, this has not been tested in court, and ISTR hearing that there is
court precedent that linking a program with a library does
not (LGPL language notwithstanding) create a "derived work".
[snip]
comments. But, IANAL.
And neither am I. (I left this in for your protection, so I wouldn't
be taking you statements out of context.)
On the whole, the GPL serves us well, but it's not for everyone or for
everyprogram.
Never was a truer word spoken. It serves *some* of us well, others
*not* so well.
[snip]
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
