On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 08:09:42PM +0100, James Troup wrote: > Andrew Lenharth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >From the copyright: > > >| If you wish to integrate it with any other > > >| software system which is not GPL'd, without integrating it into an > > >| operating system kernel, then you must obtain an additional license. > > >This makes this software non-free. If you disagree with this > > >analysis, please take it up on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks. > > >James > > > > I don't agree. The GPL only allows integration with GPL products. > > Eh? No it doesn't. I can, for example, integrate GPLed code into a > product with a MIT-style license without problems. > > I think I understand what the license is trying to say (that non-GPL > licenses are available from the author, if you don't want to be bound > by the terms of the GPL?), but the way it's currently worded is > incredibly sloppy and fails the DFSG.
I think we need to see the whole license, because I think this was an amendment to an amendment to the GPL - i.e. this takes it out of context. I don't understand why you think this is non-free - even if you could only link it with GPL'ed programs, both the GPL and QPL are free licenses with restrictions on associated licenses like this. Which clause does it violate? -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http/ftp: x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu "A dynamic character with an ability to survive certain death and a questionable death scene leaving no corpse? Face it, we'll never see her again." - Sluggy Freelance
