Oh yeah, OBLIGATORY IANAL CLAUSE Which is a true statement, so for what its worth, nothing I have said is worth the paper its not printed on as far as the law is concerned. That said, as it turns out I am meeting with a room full of them this morning to discuss a very similar topic in regards to how to properly license the source code and other items as they relate to an upcoming release from my company. I'll bring up this issue and see what they have to say on the matter and follow-up with the result**.
** Which of course will in no way be legally binding or potentially even accurate as it relates to anything other than my companies choice of licensing schemes. But information from people who are paid to know legal stuff about stuff is always nice to have around. If nothing else it can make for good non-legally binding trivia to be slung around IRC in a way that makes people think you actually know what you're taking about***. ;-) *** And you can never get enough of non-legally binding IRCable trivia if you were to ask me****. **** Which if you did it wouldn't be legally binding because as well are now ever so painfully overly aware, I AM NOT A LAWYER*****! ***** Thank God, is all I, and I can only assume *MANY* others have to say. ;-) On 8/29/07, M. David Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/29/07, Sanghyeon Seo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Now, suppose a collective work composed of Ms-PL-licensed sources and > > GPL-licensed sources. My understanding is that it is undistributable > > in source code form since both licenses want it to be licensed "under > > this license". I think GPL would "comply with Ms-PL", but GPL requires > > distributing in binary form to be accompanied with the complete > > machine-readable source code, so the source code needs to be > > distributable too. > > > > Isn't this true about most BSD-esque licenses? I'll admit that I have > never really dug much deeper than the surface as to why BSD-esque and GPL > licenses tend to be incompatible and therefore redistribution of a GPL'd > software package inside of a BSD-esque software package is not allowed. But > off the top of my head, the Trac <> MoinMoin incompatibility comes to mind, > and there are obviously LOTS and LOTS of other similar situations. > > > Is this particular issue really all that unique, or am I missing something > obvious? > > > -- > /M:D > > M. David Peterson > http://mdavid.name | http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354 | > http://dev.aol.com/blog/3155 > -- /M:D M. David Peterson http://mdavid.name | http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354 | http://dev.aol.com/blog/3155
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
