GPL issues, was Re: Problems with SyncMal
klemmerj at webtrek.com
Mon Apr 1 16:59:26 EST 2002
On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 13:41, Judd Montgomery wrote:
> IMO, this topic belongs on this list as a developer issue. Since the
> traffic is low, I only have one list. I'd be interested in this topic
> as long as it doesn't get out of hand and put me to sleep.
Ok, works for me.
> By distributing an RPM containing MPL code and using jpilot headers, it
> would seem to me that this part of the license is being violated. The
> MPL code can't be licensed under the GPL. The word "derived" is also vague.
There's much about the GPL that is vague. It seems to me to be an
intentional vagueness. I don't mean this in a negative or derogatory
way. There are very valid and reasonable times when you need vagueness.
> The linking part I've read over and over and it just seems so vague and
> unclear to me. I've read web sites interpreting the GPL, but I don't
> see some of these things in the GPL itself and that is what matters.
> This is all pretty boring stuff to me and I only care as much as I have
> to. Jason has my permission to do what he's doing, which brings up
> another issue. Can I give him permission since not 100% of J-Pilot is
> my code? Do I need to ask all contributors to give the code to me so I
> can allow these things, or is it enough that my name is at the top of
> the header file?
That's the whole reason the licensing issue gives me a headache. It is
just so convoluted anymore. I think everything should be Public Domain
and to hell with the lawyers. :-)
P.S. The above was meant as sarcastic humor directed towards software
licenses in general and not at Jpilot.
Using Linux since 11/91 | http://www.linux.org
Linux user #29402 | http://counter.li.org
Red Hat Linux | http://www.redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Jpilot