Alan M. Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 10:44, Sean wrote:
>> Hah! What a confused piece of logic that is. The thing that
>> is really restricting you is the patented priprietary library!
>
> No. Nothing in most proprietary licenses restrict them being linked into
> programs containing parts with other licenses. The thing that restricts
> this is the GPL. Your statement is patently false.
Incorrect. If you wish to do so, you may freely link a GPL'd work to a
proprietary one. You would not be allowed to redistribute that linked work
though. (You would still be permitted to redistribute the GPL-only component
if it could be reasonably and logically distinct from the proprietary work.)
Remember: The GPL is a copyright license. It only restricts the manners
in which users may modify and/or redistribute a given work. It does *not*
restrict usage. (And, in fact, if it did it would be non-Free.)
> Please don't misunderstand. I don't have any real problem with the GPL.
> It's just a license. That's ok. I do, however, see quite a few GPL
> evangelists running about with a see-no-evil approach to their preferred
> license. Stop for a moment and realize that, while the GPL may have some
> real advantages, it also has some disadvantages. Pointing out those
> disadvantages is not heresy.
Agreed.
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
This message was sent through a webmail
interface, and thus not signed.
