Richard Lawrence <[email protected]> writes: > Hmm...does the first bullet point rule out the GPL (or any > non-permissive, BSD-style license)?
No. (Did you mean "non-BSD-style license", there? It's hard to call (new) BSD "non-permissive".) > I guess the subtlety here is what counts as a > "distribution." I most naturally read that as "code that will be > compiled and linked together," in which case it would rule out the > GPL. But I guess they must mean it in the sense of "GNU/Linux > distribution," in which case the GPL is obviously fine. A "distribution" is simply a aggregate collection of programs; it has nothing to do with linking or derived works in terms of the GPL. Your "most natural" reading is not the accepted one. :) -- ...jsled http://asynchronous.org/ - a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo $...@${b}
