On 16 Jun 2000, James Troup wrote:
> > >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.
The license on the collective whole will become GPL, since the MIT's
requirements are a strict subset of the GPL's (the only true measure of
compatibility between the GPL and anything else). The license on the MIT
parts will still be MIT.
> 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.
That blurb simply states a fact (that the copyright holder has the right
to relicense), and I'm not sure how stating a fact is contrary to the
DFSG. Of course, the licensor better make sure they get copyright
assignment from all contributors, otherwise that fact becomes invalid,
strictly speaking.
Brian
