On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 11:49:47AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The code > > > in question has been highly modified and integrated into the glibc > > > source tree, presumably with the modifications under the LGPL, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > It's not appropriate to presume so as to make things illegal. > > > Sun has repeatedly clarified elsewhere that the intent of this is > > > essentially "MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product > > > alone." > The copyright holder has, apparently, stated their intentions. That's not the copyright holder whom you're presuming for. > And > their intentions are: "MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this > product alone". > > Are you seriously suggesting that this is *not* an additional > restriction over those made by the (L)GPL? I'm not particularly convinced it's not compatible with the GPL, either. If you're trying to distribute the product alone, then the GPL has absolutely no relevance. If you're distributing it with something, GPLed or not, then it's apparently the same as MIT/X11, which is GPL compatible. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?''
Description: PGP signature