Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Stephan Kuhagen wrote: > [...] >> More important than that is, that at least some of my modules will >> use other GPLed Libraries and Programs, so those modules have to be >> GPL anyway. > > Linking is irrelevant. If your modules are not derivative works of > "GPLed Libraries and Programs" (seek the advice of your own legal > counsel re AFC test), then I suggest that you simply go ahead with > the CPL or EPL;
Uh, you forgot that he liked the GPL and its provisions. > if somebody dares to come after you claiming GPL violation (in court > of law, not those empty threats and "opinions" the FSF is so fond > of), you'll have a good chance to put the entire GPL code base into > quasi public domain. A chance that the legal departments of Microsoft, IBM and a few other large players with deep pockets have happily passed on, and a three-digit number of parties addressed by the GPL-violations project alone did, too. As usual, Alexander's advice is fit for lunatics. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
