>"Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Now, a BSDish component in a GPLish application is not a problem from
>>> the point of view of the component's license.
>> So, which provision or
>> provisions of the libjpeg copying conditions do you claim are
>> GPL incompatible?
>None --- please reread what I wrote above. What I am concerned about
>is the herd mentality (Hurd mentality?) I perceive here. In particular,
>I think it highly likely that at some point someone will claim that
>all components in Mozilla are shipped under GPL. Not "GPL compatible",
>but "GPL".
>Basically I'm upset at the prospect that components with perfectly good
>open-source licenses will be coerced into someone else's idea of a
>better license, with or without their consent.
> regards, tom lane
> organizer, Independent JPEG Group
As I undertand the situation you have described, a recipient's
only copyright exposure in copying code that is _entirely_ from
libjpeg would be the copyright that you own and you have given
them permission to copy. They could violate the GPL as long as
they were obeying the libjpeg copyright conditions with no copyright
infringement liability.
On the other hand, I am not a lawyer and this is not intended
as legal advice, but rather an explanation of my understanding of
the situation.
Anyhow, thanks for clarifying your position so quickly.
Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 4880 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 104
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / San Jose, California 95129-1034
+1 408 261-6630 | g g d r a s i l United States of America
fax +1 408 261-6631 "Free Software For The Rest Of Us."
