On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 09:10:07AM -0700, Roy Tennant wrote:
> On Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 07:55 AM, email@example.com 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
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.
Received on Thu May 22 17:14:17 2003