Re: Is this software really GPL?
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:25:07PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > "You cannot install, or ask your customer to install a GPL version of
> > OpenQM and then install your own product unless that product is also
> > delivered to the user under GPL or an approved variant."
> This would be accurate for the case that "your own product" incorporates
> sources from OpenQM.
> Otherwise, it's irrelevant.
It's misleading. I can install OpenQM--or ask customers to--and then
install whatever I want. If it's a library, I can't link against it
with GPL-incompatible code, but that has nothing to do with how it was
installed or what I ask people to do.
> > "If you are going to distribute multiple copies of openQM within your
> > company, you will probably need a commercially licensed version of
> > openQM."
> This one is wierd -- but it might be true if some other assumptions
> are held to be the case (such as: you don't want to provide source code
> within your company, perhaps for policy reasons).
> "probably" is a weasel word.
The statement is badly misleading. It doesn't matter much to me if it
can be interpreted in a true way, since the only thing I really care about
here is the spread of confusion about the GPL.