> >> The only reason that holds him back is that the GPL.txt says he should
> >> include his source code with the program.
> >>
> >> Is there anyone who actually cares about this?
>
> M> Yes, a *very big* yes. He will incur serious wrath from the open source
> M> community if he violates GPL.
>
> well, I respect him, and love his work. But that's why I came here and
> asked.
I understand, I wasn't trying to come down on anyone. I just wanted the
answer to be very clear without any wiggle room that could cause trouble :-)
> M> The GPL is intentionally viral in nature. Part of its political intent is to
> M> force more software to be Open. If you don't want to open the source, you
> M> can't coexist with the GPL.
>
> i don't like politics.
Actually, the viral/political nature of the GPL is a constant source of debate
within the open source community too. Bill Joy wrote a great free verse
titled along the lines of "Free Means Free, Dammit!" :-)
> M> Precedents: I don't know if I can pull up any lawsuits that actually got
> M> filed, but I can name many examples of companies who have gotten a stern
> M> talking to.
>
> yes, companies. this is just one person, offering a free player to
> the win32 platform.
It's still the case. Sorry. Just the way it is, even for individuals.
> are there precedents of an piece of GPL upgrading to LGPL?
Sure! I changed all my own stuff from GPL to LGPL last year (I decided I
mostly agreed with Bill Joy ;-). Send the author a letter; he may be willing.
Monty
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
