On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:56:31 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If any portion of the code is covered by the GPL, the work > as a whole must be distributed under the GPL or not at > all. No other terms are permitted. Source distribution and > no additional restrictions on redistribution are required. If you're going to repeat the same crap, i'll repeat the same answer in hope you can grasp it this time: If you want to base your work on the work of another that is released under the GPL, then you must accept the terms of the bargain. It's called FAIR EXCHANGE. > It is possible for the owner of a work to release it under > different licenses, one of which might be the GPL, if > that's what you mean. But then it's not using the GPL > at all under the other terms and can't include any code > that does. And you don't have the right to redistribute any software you buy from Microsoft. The GPL gives you way more rights to software than any license you've ever entered into with Microsoft. > You are the one who brought up the point. I'm just pointing > out the unlikely nature of such an event. It's already happened. IBM has released RCU code to the GPL community. Red Hat and others have large patent pools which they have released to the GPL community. It's unfortunate you're so ignorant of such things. > Maybe you can get the rights for the new HD DVD formats if there > are any patents involved... Or maybe IBM can or Red Hat or someone else making more money from GPL software than I can. Or maybe it will turn out that such a license isn't worth it and some GPL friendly hardware will come along that fills the need instead. *shrug*. Sean
