Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Let's add some patents and maybe some special government legislation > or treaties to the mix, for example -- such that you have a proprietary > function which can be distributed under some license terms which involve > money changing hands, but cannot be distributed under GPL license terms.
> How is it not the GPL which is preventing this distribution? It is the patents, the government legislation, et cetera, that prevents the distribution. I really don't see how you can claim that it is the GPL that leads to non-distributability . Could you try to describe the reasoning that leads you to that conclusion (rather than just asserting that is is)? > If so, how is this different from any other case of "not being able to > distribute under the terms of some license"? It is different from, for example, a license that explicitly says: Modified versions that run under X11 are not allowed and may not be distributed. (By the way, this example is not hypothetical - as far as I remember, we once saw such a license on d-l. I don't remember when or for which software, though). -- Henning Makholm "What a hideous colour khaki is."
