what was the point?

[Karsten M. Self]

on Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 06:23:56PM -0400, John Cowan (cowan at mercury.ccil.org) wrote:
> email at greglondon.com scripsit:
> 
> > the original situation was with regard to linking GPL software. when
> > you redistribute GPL software linked with other software, the other
> > software must be GPL licensed as well.
> 
> No, it has to be freely distributable, not GPL.  A compiled Linux
> kernel is GPL, and so are most of its parts, but some are under the
> BSD, which is fine because that is a free distribution license that
> imposes no extra restrictions above the GPL.

Pedantically, it's John's last condition that's crucial:  a GPL
compatible license must impose no restrictions not present in the GPL
itself.

IANAL, TINLA, YADA.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>       http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?             Home of the brave
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/                   Land of the free
   Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire                     http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20011025/0ccca797/attachment.sig>