avesty writes: > I didn't realize the goal of the GPL was for it to be interpreted and > implemented differently by each group that uses it... That seems to work > entirely against the goal of its widespread adoption.
The GPL is a model license, not a law. How do you expect its authors to prevent people from coming up with wonky interpretations and trying to bluff you into giving them money? > The answers from the ghostscript company are along the lines of "The GPL > is viral, you can't bundle/distribute it together with anything non GPL > under any circumstances"... They are, in my "not a lawyer" opinion, wrong. > ...yet The GPL FAQ tells me I'm fine. The FAQ was written with the assistance of lawyers. > ...I even sent the portions of the FAQ to the company in my initial > enquiry and was told something to the effect of "no we don't look at it > like that". Makes things a little difficult. It would appear that they are difficult people. You can believe them, believe us and the FAQ, or consult a lawyer. Your difficulties are not the fault of the authors of the GPL, though. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
