On 9/5/06, പ്രവീണ്|Praveen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
IT Manger's journal has an article about 10 common misunderstandings about
the GPL which you can read here
http://www.itmanagersjournal.com/article.pl?sid=06/08/21/1659203
The experts NewsForge consulted to come up with this are:
Richard Fontana, a lawyer with the Software Freedom Law Center and one of
the main drafters of the third version of the license; David Turner,
former
compliance engineer at the Free Software Foundation who is assisting with
the revisions of the license; and Harald Welte of the GPL-Violations
project<http://gpl-violations.org/>,
which tracks possible cases of non-compliance and tries to assist in
resolving them.
<quote>In the end, Turner concedes, some degree of confusion is probably
inescapable. "There's always going to be people who misunderstand," he
says,
"no matter how you write the license, even in words of one syllable."
</quote>
Regards
Praveen
--
"Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
`Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn."
-- Richard Stallman
Me scribbles at http://www.pravi.co.nr
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Hi all
Although the GPL clearly states that selling GPLd software is permitted,
my colleagues often raise one doubt. They complain that selling GLPd
software is meaningless since the buyer will also have access to the source
& can therefore make any number of copies of the application for free. This
is possible because one can buy a copy, modify it & redistribute the
modified copy for free. Is the GPL ``viral'' in this sense too ? That is, is
the derived work non-free (in terms of money) too and the payments to be
redirected to the author?
Regards,
Mohan S N
--
"The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne, the' assay so hard, so sharp
the conqueryinge"
-- Geoffrey Chaucer
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
