Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right - as long as all code was dual licensed - the implication of Jim's
> statement was that dual-licensing our sources would allow us to benefit
> from other GPLv3 code, but if we did pull that in, it would be GPLv3-only
> and not dual licensed, and distros would have no choice on using it.
It appeases me to see that you see this problem.
> > b) needed encumbered binaries should be considered as separate modules
> > and still distro-builders will have full rights to re-distribute them.
>
> Will GPLv3 allow you to ship libc.so with most sources under GPL but
> the i18n components closed source? I certainly didn't think GPLv2
> would.
The last time I did read the GPLv3 draft, it was not even clear to me whether
GPLv3 really clearly allows a mix with other OSS licenses.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
