"Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > From the other side of things, GPL'ed libraries have also been a > > Free Software Business success story (for example: sleepycat, Qt). > > SleepyCat?? http://www.sleepycat.com/docs/sleepycat/license.html > That's no GPL.
No, but the effect is similar: * 3. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on * how to obtain complete source code for the DB software and any * accompanying software that uses the DB software. The source code * must either be included in the distribution or be available for no * more than the cost of distribution plus a nominal fee, and must be * freely redistributable under reasonable conditions. For an * executable file, complete source code means the source code for all * modules it contains. It does not include source code for modules or * files that typically accompany the major components of the operating * system on which the executable file runs. They even talk about it here: http://www.winterspeak.com/columns/102901.html "These are, effectively, the same terms as the GPL. We didn't use the GPL for historical reasons -- carrying the BSD license and copyrights from 1.85 would not have been possible under a straight GPL. However, the license was designed to work exactly the way the GPL does." -- David N. Welton Consulting: http://www.dedasys.com/ Personal: http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/ Free Software: http://www.dedasys.com/freesoftware/ Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
