Udo,
us:
> mf:
> > AFAIR this happened to SSH.com with the
> > bigint code in ssh-v1.3
>
> SSH included GMP, which was licensed under the GPL. Nothing "happened"
> there, only the OpenSSH folks disliked the license and reimplemented
> GMP.
... and had to fight an ugly battle over the question
Matthias Fischmann wrote:
> And it's really not as easy to control as you suggest: If you ever
> take in a single patch under the GPL,
This kind of thing doesn't happen by accident. Patches don't magically
creep into your code, you have to apply them deliberately and you should
always know whethe
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 12:57:47PM +0100, Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
> To: Matthias Fischmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
> From: Chris Kuklewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 12:57:47 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why Not Haske
Note that there are many people who will not do work on a BSD project since a
company can just come along and take it. People are free to choose GPL or BSD
for their work and then other people are free to choose whether to derive work
from them.
But this is just the thing, isn't it? The GPL has
Matthias Fischmann wrote:
> But if GPL is stuck to any part of the code and
> manages to infect the rest, the client can make you sign as many NDAs
> as there can be. The GPL still entitles you to sell it.
Nonsense. The GPL says, *if* you distribute a binary, *then* you also
have to distribute t
There is a false statement that must be corrected, about NDA's.
Matthias Fischmann wrote:
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 10:46:16AM +0100, Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
[...]
The GPL only gets in the way if you put it there by choosing to derive work
from GPL code. Note that most commercial programs do no
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 10:46:16AM +0100, Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> The GPL only gets in the way if you put it there by choosing to derive work
> from GPL code. Note that most commercial programs do not allow you the
> choice of deriving your work from theirs at all. The GPL adds
