On Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 06:27:03PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > I'm pretty sure that a program must be either entirely GPLed, > > or contain no GPLed parts. > > More precisely, the non-gpled parts must not have terms which prevent > compliance with the gpled parts. Uhh, the GPL does not state that the software must simply be free, it states that it must be free in a form that is compatible with the GPL. The GPL has what some consider to be a "virus". It is free, but militantly so. This is good sometimes, but bad others. It would have been bad for Netscape, which is why they opted to use their own. What people do not realize is that an author can release code to be used under more than once license, ie under GPL or MPL as you choose, as long as you follow one of them. I would be much happier with the GPL if it was a bit more compatible with other free licenses, but it does serve its purpose for some things. For example, M$ can't run off with a derivative of Linux and sell it (both as idea and product) as their own.
Attachment:
pgpjGnRG7w7II.pgp
Description: PGP signature