On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Lourens Veen wrote: >> 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. > >Having thought about it some more, I think we're both correct. >cdrdao cannot be published under the GPL, because then linking it >to libedc would violate the license. It would however be possible >to put a license on it that has everything the GPL has with the >special exception that the author of cdrdao allows you to link it >with libedc, even if the libedc license does not give you the >rights specified in the GPL. Ofcourse then cdrdao would no longer >be published under the GPL, but it (that is cdrdao without libedc) >would still be under a GPL-compatible license.
In order to do that, would require every person who has contributed source code to cdrdao to agree to the change of license, or to agree to assign all copyrighted code they've contributed to the author. I think a much more amiable solution is to replace any parts that potentially violate/invalidate the GPL with code that is GPL compatible. Changing the license just removes freedom anyway. -- Mike A. Harris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
