Re: Is this software really GPL?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Is this software really GPL?
- From: Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 06:46:06 -0400
- Message-id: <20041020064606.R29620@links.magenta.com>
- In-reply-to: <C7FE35004D40FD45AA342991B88CE40409B044@lnml1.eca-international.local>; from Anthony.Youngman@eca-international.com on Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:23:11AM +0100
- References: <C7FE35004D40FD45AA342991B88CE40409B044@lnml1.eca-international.local>
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:23:11AM +0100, Anthony Youngman wrote:
> But as I see it, they (QM) are adding an extra restriction, as
> proscribed by the GPL (clauses 6 and 7).
> "If you distribute to subsidiaries, you may not stop them distributing
> to the world". But the GPL explicitly recognises internal distribution
> as a case where the GPL is not needed.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
I can't even find the word "internal" in the GPL.
> comment about SCO wasn't that justified. It's just that I tried to do
> exactly what they're trying to do, and I ended up being convinced it was
> impossible - to make sure nobody could wrest an Open Source project away
> from me ...
> TT can do it because they're trusted. MySQL can do it because they're
> trusted. EasyCo are trying to do it with legal finesse ...
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, either.
[I could guess, but how likely are my guesses to be accurate?]