On 18/03/2007, at 7:13 AM, Giovanni wrote: > LOL > > Apple definitely does. > > I mean, they have many major components that are GPLed.
i would be extremely surprised if Apple had "components" that were GPLed! It would be conforming to the license for them (or anyone else) to ship: 1) applications that are GPL - standalone tools callable from the shell. 2) libraries as dynamically linkable libraries that are LGPL 3) "components" to which they have a license and you are therefore allowed to use on OS/X (which hopefully are documented as being so licensed) 4) components which are distributed under multiple licenses including BSD or others which allow them to be used in a commercial setting (some people do that so there stuff can be used in GPL projects but not impede other projects). Can you point to something specific that is of questionable GPL status? > I have > approached a developer of a library that is GPL and they wanted about > $5,000.00 to $20,000.00 to use their library commercially. and what's wrong with that? Just because someone chooses to support GPL projects doesn't mean they should donate their work to all :-D Dual licensing is a well-established way for GPL projects to be funded. Don't knock it. How many hours of work did it take you to replicate their functionality? Maybe you could release a competitor much cheaper. Andy _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
