[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2001-07-16 at 0850.45 +1000):
> A quick skim of the webpage seems to indicate the know what the GPL is.

Then they will link to FSF, not Open Source. If you say GPL and Open
Source, and a FSF guy heards it, like Stallman, you will get some
mails explaining the differences.

> The only thing I can see that's interesting is what happens if they use
> the GPL'ed code in their commercial products? Given the nature of the GPL,
> surely that means they'd have to distribute source of the other products too?

As owners of their code, they can use their code with other licenses.
They can not put others code into that apps, so I guess patches will
only be accepted if copyrights are transfered. Yes, it is possible to
do that, to distribute under multiple licenses and to transfer rights.

> They certainly would have to if they ever accept contributions from the outside
> world under the GPL, I believe.

No, they can say "we accept, and it will stay in the GPL codec, but
you must transfer the rights so we can use that code as non GPL inside
other apps". It is similar with FSF, they want the rights if you want
your app to be official FSF, but this time they want it to sue when
somebody does not follow the rules (GPL). If you do not want it to be
official, so they will not go to courts if problems arise, you can
keep the rights.

I think they have docs about all this in http://www.gnu.org/.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to