Re: Can we distribute non-GPLed code with Lush?

AINAL but: libsvm is under BSD License which is GPL compatible, thus its
code can be introduced into GPL-license software. also dislike GPL, BSD
license doesn't require modified files to list explicitly who modified
them and summary of what was modified. So from that perspective lush is
is in good standing.

As for lush copyright header: again, I can be completely wrong, but
having that doesn't violate any clause of BSD License which simply
requires to "retain the above copyright notice, this list of
conditions and the following disclaimer.", which is fulfilled.
I guess, the purpose of lush's copyright header is to state that
custom modifications are under GPL, but indeed it could be made more
obvious.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008, Ralf Juengling wrote:
> Lush is distributed under the GPL. Are there any provisions that ban
> distributing non-GPL'ed code along with it? For instance, I see that
> Lush includes a modified copy of libsvm.

> Btw, I find it problematic to simply put the standard Lush copyright
> header into svm.cpp--what does it mean?

> Ralf





> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Lush-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lush-devel


-- 
                                  .-.
=------------------------------   /v\  ----------------------------=
Keep in touch                    // \\     (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko              /(   )\               ICQ#: 60653192
                   Linux User    ^^-^^    [175555]



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/