[License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution
forums at david-woolley.me.uk
Thu Jan 12 22:58:51 UTC 2012
Henrik Ingo wrote:
> Yes. However, when referring to the GPL FAQ, I actually believe it
> represents the common understanding of a rather large portion of the
> FOSS community, not just the understanding of Stallman or perhaps
> Moglen. (Granted, for many it is just that they accept whatever the
Whilst Rick takes the view that the law doesn't allow the FSF to achieve
its objectives, and there is a bias amongst people enquiring here
towards people who want to leverage GPLed code without revealing their
proprietary code. My impression is that most people who use the GPL to
protect their own intellectual creations actually tend to believe that
the GPL protects against commercial exploitation even more than the FSF
states, or would want it to do so.
> FSF says, for others it might be they don't want to argue with the
> FSF, but even so, their acceptance then contributes to the common
> understanding.) Hence I find it a useful though not legally
> authoritative document.
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
More information about the License-discuss