On May 21, 7:42 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Although I'm not the asker of the question, this still brings to > mind the dillemma I haven't quite settled for myself yet. What if, > say, instead of dual-licensing the _entire work_, he (the asker of > the original question) tweaked it so the _GPL parts_ could be > distributed in the package *and also over a website or other > free-availability source* _UNDER GPL_, while the 90% that is > _ORIGINAL_ is licensed under proprietary or other non-GPL terms? > > The GPL Section 2(b): 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.
What about if it does not "contain" the GPL program, ie. the two could be distributed separately and are not "fused"? Like if they occupy separate program files and there is no source code mixing, but the non-GPL one depends vitally on the GPL one? _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
