Alexander Terekhov wrote:
"For non-commercial use, Artifex licences Ghostscript to the public free of charge under the GNU GPL."
This is not an actual explanatory paragraph. Again, if you wish to make coherent, cogent posts, you should begin by describing your point rather than requiring that readers attempt to figure out what you are trying to say. Doing a bit of research at <http://artifex.com/indexlicense.htm>, we see that Artifex dual-licenses Ghostscript under the GPL and under what they call a commercial license. The text above comes from a complaint that Artifex has filed against Diebold, claiming that Diebold is violating Artifex's copyright on Ghostscript. Now, a complaint may say anything at all. Artifex's statement is not how licensing under the GPL is properly understood, but there is nothing that can be done to prevent them from saying whatever they want. Diebold will presumably offer up a variety of defenses in its court papers, and things will go on from there. First of all, is Diebold honoring the terms of the GPL for standalone Ghostscript? If not, then they are certainly in violation. If they do, then they might argue that the rest of the software they distribute does not fall under the GPL, perhaps claiming that Ghostscript is not a part of it, and that it's distributed as a "mere aggregation". Then we'll have the usual back and forth filings, and probably the two sides will settle. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
