[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GNU or Open Source Licensing agreenemt.

hi ya adam

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Adam Aube wrote:

> The only "strings" attached to the GPL involve distribution and derivative
> works, and are as follows (paraphrased):
> 1) If you distribute the software, you must make the source freely available
> 2) Derivative works must also be released under the GPL

doesn't that depend on which "gpl" license ... ( there's over 40 "gpl"
license ...  but only 2(?) gnu.org "gpl" license


and what happens when you mix and match various licenses together ... :-)

mozilla's gpl doesn't require you to provide derivative work to be sent
back to them or down to your customers .. ( if i rememer correctly )

"other gpl" terms, explicitly allows you to reverse engineer the 
derivative works,  so some hw vendors are worried about it
or at this point, confused about what it all means, esp since everyone
uses "open source" and "gpl"  and 'what-you-call-it" to be interchangeably
"free and open source - so i don't have to pay anybody anything or pass
along the original source "

> Note that original work you create (code, documents, etc) does NOT need to
> be licensed under the GPL, even if you used a GPL-licensed code to create
> it. The only work you must release under the GPL is work derived from
> something that is licensed under the GPL.
> > Should I develop a patentable extension to the Debian opus, is there any
> > claim against my profit?

"patentable extension" ???

but hey, guess lots of people are trying to file patents and claiming
the whole thing as their own devlopment
 	( iptables case being one of those "patented firewall appliance"
	( that no long is patented

should be fun/interesting/annoying to see what all the laywers do
with the 40+ "open source" licenses

c ya

Reply to: