On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 03:50:18PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: > Marcelo E. Magallon writes: > > A fourth option (which I dislike because it's very treacherous) is to call > > the GPL into play. I'm sure that statement is not compatible with the GPL, > > is it? > > No. However, to use the GPL there must be at least one author who objects > to the restriction. Also, invoking the GPL would only say "Hey, no one can distribute this", not "Anyone can". The KDE/Qt thing doesn't mean Qt's _really_ GPLed, just because some of the people involved in Qt devel are also involved in KDE devel, it means KDE isn't distributable. We can use the *lack* of objection by any of the authors to distribute the work anyway, and claim there's an implied permission given, without being too unreasonable, but we can't do the opposite. I'd really feel much better about all this pseudo legal advice if we could get a real true honest to god copyright lawyer to look over some of these opinions, we've enshrined into folk-lore [0]. Cheers, aj [0] folk-lore, folk-law! Ha! Geddit! Gee. Sometimes I just crack me up. -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred. ``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
Attachment:
pgpTOVQhdOziG.pgp
Description: PGP signature