On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 07:55:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > (CC to d-legal; it's related, at least due to edict-el, and they're a > lot better at this topic than I am.)
It's much easier if you provide some context when you CC like this. > Does this prevent plain GPL software from using the EDICT? No. Look, for example, at Quake. It's GPL, but at least for a long period of time (and arguably still today) there is only one useable data set, and it was non-free. The license of the data could forbid use with a GPLed program, but could not prohibit the GPLed program, as that's a seperate entity. > > (I had trouble convincing RMS that non-software didn't really fit under > > the GPL.) The GPL isn't the greatest license for non-software. The principles of the GPL - right to modify and distribute, rejection of right to take proprietary - are very relevant to non-software, though, and the GPL is a decent lazy-man's way of applying them. What exactly was the question here? -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side." - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
