Alexander Terekhov wrote:
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?
Of course. In that case, you are correct and Artifex is wrong, as long as Diebold is obeying the licensing terms. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
