Okay, all these GNU licenses are a bit confusing as far as I'm
concerned. I think I've got a decent under standing of the GPL and LGPL
since I've used them, but my latest project will use the FDL. The
project is a book on ancient history, of which the specifics of
aren't important for this
say there's a GPL'd command line exec foo that does some nifty
function
and i've got a program which does something that wants to use what
foo can do.
i've not changed any code in foo, i simply want to use the binary.
can i distribute the original unmodified binary foo with my
proprietary software
Yes. Note, however, that you will be distributing foo and will have to
comply with the terms of its license.
allright how bout if i have the user go and install said tool and i do
NOT include it with my distribution? in my app, say the user invokes
that funtion, i can detect if foo is
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3) [17 USC 106(3)], the
owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this
title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the
authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the
possession of
Then you are not copying or distributing foo and so its license does not
impinge upon you.
Well, doesn't this just seem like a total legal loophole in the GPL?
What if i don't even ask the user to press a button, what if i just,
upon install, as part of the install, just download and install
can we all please stop talking in parables and references to topics we
may not all share the detailed background knowledge of? I'd like a
straight answer with the entire answer within the text.
is the GPL basically not enforceable assuming you work around it
technically by the aforementioned
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 9:43 AM, RJack wrote:
The statement . . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and
valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess, . .
. automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is
conjectural and hypothetical. The SFLC lawyers
LMAO... A BSD replacement for BusyBox under a BSD license.
From ROB LANDLEY no less:
Toybox is released under a simple 2-clause BSD-style license.
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Controversy-around-Busybox-alternative-1426119.html
