Tim Smith <[email protected]> writes: > In article <[email protected]>, > Chris Ahlstrom <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Nobody can honestly not understand the main meanings of the GPL. > > Is it OK under GPL to release a plug-in for a GPL program, if the plugin > is under a license that is not compatible with GPL? > > Is it OK under GPL to release a GPL plug-in for a program that is under > a license that is not compatible with GPL? E.g., could you release a > GPL plug-in for Word? > > If there are two libraries that perform the same functions, but with > different interfaces, and one library is under GPL, and the other is > under a GPL-incompatible license, is it OK to distribute code that can > be compiled to use either library? You would not be distributing either > library--just your code, and telling the user to obtain (if they don't > already have it) whichever library they prefer, and compile for that. > > Would it be OK for Comcast to use GPL code in their DVR? Note that > their DVR stops functioning if you are not hooked up to their system or > your account is not in good standing.
As usual COLA's #1 arsekisser has run to someones defence without having a clue about the subject in hand. But being a closed source developer, what can we expect? -- In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
