On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 09:10:07AM -0700, Roy Tennant wrote:
> On Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 07:55 AM, moseley@hank.org wrote:
> 
> > So, it seems like anyone can use GPL Swish-e (binary or library) in 
> > their
> > own product without restriction, without forcing them to make their own
> > product GPL'd and can charge for their product as they like.  But they
> > cannot take it, claim it as their own, and as a result claim patent on 
> > it
> > preventing other from using it.  Seems reasonable.
> >
> I feel like I'm in a parallel universe...everything I've read on the 
> GNU web site indicates that the main purpose of the GPL license is to 
> force any other software that uses GPL'd software into open source.

I want to be a lawyer.  Get paid well to write things nobody understands then
get hired back it explain what it means.  I guess that fit programmers, too. 
Except for the money part...


Section 2 of GPL says:

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with 
the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage 
or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this 
License. 

Which is back to my question of if swish-e is used to provide a search for 
their docs but is not really part of their program then it's not really 
based on swish-e so it doesn't force them to use GPL or be Open Source.

> Stallman even admits that one reason for going to LGPL is because there
> are other, competing applications in your domain space, so using such a
> restrictive license (as GPL) would be counter-productive (since it would
> discourage use).

Or my reading was that LGPL is a last resort to get your code used instead 
of other competing code.

I'm busy for the next day or so.  Perhaps we can put this off a while.  That 
will allow me time to ask around.


-- 
Bill Moseley
moseley@hank.org