>From: Lourens Veen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Erm, the GPL puts your program under what's known as a "strong=20 >copyleft". This forbids linking with non-GPL-compatible code. I=20 >quote (GPL (http://www.gnu.org/ , clause 2, sentence 5): >"But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which=20 >is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must=20 >be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other=20 >licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every=20 >part regardless of who wrote it." >Given that cdrdao without libedc_ecc is under the GPL, cdrdao with=20 >libedc_ecc linked in is then a derived work, which must be=20 >published under the GPL entirely. Since the libedc_ecc license=20 >forbids this, it follows that our premise is incorrect. So we must=20 >conclude that the parts of cdrdao without libedc_ecc cannot be=20 >published under the GPL. Definitely not correct! The Author may put his SW under GPL. However, as libedc is not GPLd the "viral" part of the GPL does not apply to libedc - no matter what's written in the GPL. The problem is that Andreas did not make this clear before. As a result of this "missing hint" other people did believe that libedc is GPLd. Just note: you may put whatever you like into a contract. If (even parts of) the content of the contract violates "good morals", the whole contract is void except you put a "healing clause" into the contract. AFAIK, the GPL does not carry such a "healing clause". Andreas also did not put this "healing clause" into the contract so cdrdao did effectively came completely without a license. J�rg EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am J"org Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
