I urge you to visit www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html; there you will find a list of free osftware licenses that the FSF has determined to be "incompatible" with the GPL. The designation, however, is not a legal determination, but, rather a matter of whether "restrictions" exist to render a free software license as imposing a requirement that does not exist in the GNU GPL. The question regarding who might sue whom for what in response to an arguably impermissible use of a derivative work is an entirely different matter.
Rod On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, John Cowan wrote: > Rod Dixon scripsit: > > > > You are both wrong. The designation of whether one license is incompatible > > with the GPL says nothing about "violation." On FSF's website, they > > designate some licenses as incompatible with the GPL. The question raised > > was why the AFL is included in that list. > > It is whether the of creating a work that is derivative from two other works, > W licensed under license Alpha, and X licensed under the GPL, is lawful > that determines whether or not Alpha is incompatible with the GPL. > > -- > Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. > Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. (3x) > Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! > -- Joyce, _Ulysses_, "Oxen of the Sun" [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3