On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, Marc Clifton wrote: > In response to Kevin's post: > > > ... Just because a XUL motor, for example, is GPL, doesn't mean that > applications written on it have to be. > > I disagree. A GPL is very restrictive. It only allows applications to be > built that are themselves open source.
This has been answered already, but I feel I should make a correction, since there's an awful lot of misinformation and misunderstanding regarding the GPL. The GPL requires all derivative works to also be GPL. If you take a GPL'd XUL motor, change the 'about' page and re-release it, you must release it under the same terms. If, however, I write an application to run on a GPL XUL motor, I can license this any way I please. In the same way, gcc can be used to build binaries that can be released under any open or proprietary license. The GPL aims to protect against is someone taking a useful piece of software, and then enhancing it but keeping the enhancements private. In other words, if you're going to benefit from the work of others, then it's only fair that you contribute back. That doesn't sound particularly restrictive to me. Kevin ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ xul-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xul-talk
