David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> While your module is not fake, the situation with regard to the > >> licenses is the same. As long as your "GPLed with exception" software > >> is _only_ combined with GPLed software, this would be ok. > > > > GNU logic. Under FSF's own interpretation, that modified "GPL with > > exception" says that combined work as whole falls under "the terms > > of this License", > > Uh, no it doesn't. Nothing _ever_ "falls" under the GPL unless it is
I meant (the FSF interpretation of): "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." > explicitly placed there, namely licensed under the GPL by the > copyright holder. The GPL is not an infectious disease. You can't > legally redistribute the results without effectively placing other > parts under the GPL (or strictly less restraining terms, this is what The GPL says "under the terms of this License." It says nothing about "strictly less restraining terms" whatever that means. Stop bullshiting, dak. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
