> > That's why I would love to see something definitive from the FSF > > I don't think I'd trust something from the FSF; they appear to be > somewhat out of touch with copyright reality. For example, I've seen > it reported that they appears to believe their license can bind code > not covered by it - the example I saw was an open-source project which > had hooks to interface to something GPLed, which they ripped out > because the FSF told them it meant the whole thing had to be GPLed.
I suspect you're (or someone else is) misquoting someone. They likely said "it would mean their whole program would need to be distributed under the terms of the GPL". Merging two works doesn't change the license of either half; it DOES mean that the combined work must be distributed only under terms allowed by both halves. Thus, certain combinations - like GPL plus proprietary - do not allow any redistribution, and other combinations - like GPL plus BSD+advertisement - lead to conflicting requirements. In the case of "GPL plus your own work", you have two choices - distribute the combined work under terms compatible with the GPL, or don't distribute it at all. Ok, three choices - don't use GPL'd sources in your program. It's you're choice, but nothing else gives you permission to redistribute the GPL'd code. Repeat: NOTHING ELSE GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO REDISTRIBUTE GPL'D CODE. The GPL doesn't guarantee you the right to redistribute anything. It gives you permission to do so under certain restrictions. If you choose to use GPL'd code in your program, you agree to abide by the restrictions. If you don't like the conditions, don't use the code. > Well, speaking as a user and hacker-on (at least if I ever pick that > project up again) of PCB, if there is any GPLv3, I'm gone. I've read > the GPLv3, and I cannot tell whether anything I'm contemplating, even > something as simple as compiling and using the program, is permitted. > That alone makes the license unsuitable for anything I'm going near. I can't think of a good reason to switch PCB to GPLv3. The only case I can think of that might be affected is gedasymbols.org using pcb to generate footprint images. GPLv3 might require me to put PCB's sources on the web site; I haven't read it carefully enough with that situation in mind. If footprint licensing weren't already confusing, I might wonder how the GPLv3 would affect footprints (feetprint?). _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
