[noticed recipient list, trimmed for sanity] On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 05:32:33PM +0100, luther@maxime.u-strasbg.fr wrote: > > No. If by "commercial" you mean "closed source". GPL'd (not LGPL'd) libraries > > no by commercial, i mean you are not allowed to develop commercial software > with it. You could well develop and sell open source commercial soft, and i am > not sure this is permited by tyhis license. see some other mail i wrote about that. It allows that kind of developemnt, commercially developed free software is allowed if it's free software.. That was the FIRST thing I looked for. > > I agree with you completely. Though my opinion probably will not be > > accepted by the majority of developers. I think that GPL'd libraries are > > NOT FREE. (Even in DFSG sense). QPL'd libary is not free for the same reason. > > huh ? > > Is this the BSD vs GPL argument ??? Looks like it to me! => -- Show me the code or get out of my way.
Attachment:
pgpjkOUDN9ZCh.pgp
Description: PGP signature