That is my understanding of the GPL. Keep in mind there are many flavors of
GPL including LGPL (which is less restrictive). One problem with the GPL
and it's variants is it's very long and hard to understand. It's enough to
scare off most commercial ventures from using GPL'd source code. I'm not
sure anyone truly understands the extent of the language in the license. The
Apache 1.1 license is simple and easy to understand.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Helen G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 8:44 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: ATTENTION ALL !!! YOUR COMMENT
>
>
> Originally created at the Free Software Foundation, the GNU license is
> stricter in its requirements than the BSD license, but nowhere near as
> restrictive as Ballmer's incorrect assessment of "open source" suggests.
> It is true that if you take code from a piece of GPL'd software and
> release a derivative work based on that code, then you must release that
> derivative work, with source code, under the GPL.
>
>
> http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/10272.html
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
