Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > "nothing other than this License grants you permission to > > propagate or modify any covered work" > > When you receive code under a separate license, it doesn't > matter what the GPL says.
I agree with that. But think about the case of Diebold receiving the ghostscript code under the GPL and now facing Artifex's claim that the GPL is non-commercial... in effect, meaning that Diebold should have applied for Artifex's proprietary license irrespective of the GPL's postulate that "nothing else grants you permission" (in GPLv3 speak: "nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work"). Got it now, Hyman? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
