> The GPL defines "source" as "the preferred form of the work for making > modifications to it". If the maintainers of the clamav db add new > signatures by unpacking the database, modifying it and packing it again, > it is source code (the act of packing and unpacking is IMHO similar to > tarring and untarring C source files). If they the generate the database > from a different source, which cannot be trivially reconstructed from > the distributed database, it is not source code. In the latter case, the > database cannot be covered by the GPL (you cannot require somebody to > distribute the source if you don't give it to them). > > hp [Mitch (bitblock)]
Hi Peter... Isn't just as easy as this? Company B wants to use GPL product A in a closed source commercial product.... So... They write library B, license it to themselves closed source, containing all their proprietary stuff, and write application B, which calls product A or uses it's libs, but IS open sourced and GPL'd - there's nothing in the GPL that prohibits you from using code within your GPL product that doesn't have the same license - there couldn't be or you could run a GPL app on a BSD system - right? Just a musing... m/ ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170 Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM. Deadline: Sept. 24. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php _______________________________________________ Clamav-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clamav-users
