On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 18:40, Joe Klemmer wrote: > > It is different, in that it restricts the distribution of other > > software that merely interacts with GPL'd libraries. Microsoft's > > license only controls the portions that they provide. > > No! It! Does! Not! > > There is no restriction to distribution of software that interacts with > the libraries. Please research the history of RIPEM and the reason the fgmp library exists. This was an attempt to make a free distribution that used, but did not include, the gpl'd gmp library and did include some code under a different license. The FSF used legal threats to stop distribution. Nothing has changed in their interpretation since then in spite of the bad press they got from interfering with another free project. > If that were remotely true then all of Mozilla and > Apache and Eclipse and everything else in the free software world would > be GPL'ed. None of those use GPL'd libraries or you are correct, they would either be GPL'd or more likely not exist. When built on platforms with gcc and it's supporting LGPL libraries they will include some LGPL parts but that is different. > If your position holds any water then show me that > everything the Apache project produces is licensed under the GPL and > only the GPL. If you can not do this then you are 100% wrong and should > apologize to everyone on this list. All you have to do is look at the Apache license to know that none of it is covered by the GPL. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
