Re: Is this software really GPL?
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 07:46:07PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 07:36:08PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Is there any reason to believe that by "GPL" they mean the "GNU Public
> > License"?
> The G in "GPL" is "General", not "GNU". (I'm sure you know this, but
> you said "GNU Public License" several times in this mail.)
Sorry about that, I meant "GNU General Public License".
Anyways, I'm having more second thoughts than just about my acronym
> > I can think of several possible scenarios:
> >  GPL does mean "GNU Public License", but no actual source is available
> > under that license. In this case, the GPL grants no rights.
> Like case #4, if this is true, the author is probably not competent.
> For example,
> "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.
> "If you are going to distribute multiple copies of openQM within your
> company, you will probably need a commercially licensed version of
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.
> Maybe we should forward this to the FSF; they would probably be interested
> in trying to have the misinformation being spread on this page corrected
> (or having a note inserted that the "GPL" here is not their GPL, but I doubt
> that's actually the case--unless the author of this page is deliberately
> trying to spread confusion). Spreading false information about the GPL
> does significant damage to Free Software.
I'd wait a day or two, to see if someone can make better sense of this.