Re: GPL

On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:

> 11-=EE=CF=D1-2002 01:02 [email protected] (Bart Oldeman) wrote =
to
> [email protected]:
>
> >> BO> DRDOS and we're not (Caldera made one source release of "Open"DOS =
with an
> >> BO> extremely stupid license, and then made it closed again -- one goo=
d way
> >> BO> NOT too make friends among OSS and Free Software developers).
> -------^^^
> >>      Why? You mean, that GPL, unlike OSS/FS, not allows to change lice=
nse?
> >> As I understand, GPL license also may be changed if all copyright hold=
ers
> >> convinced.
> BO> The GPL _is_ an OSS/FS license. OpenDOS never was GPLed.
>
>      Then why you propose "NOT to make friends among OSS"? Or you mean th=
at
> ODOS holders "found" way how to "not make (and lost) friends"?

Yes. Caldera was releasing only a small part of the OpenDOS source code
under a restrictive and unfair license (after promising more) and then
took it back. By doing this, they pissed off quite a few people.

>      Then LGLP differs that it _allows_ to _built_ LGPLed sources/librari=
es
> into commercial software, although included code anyway should be availab=
le
> as separate complete package/URL near to commercial software and there
> should be preserved copyright strings?

Yes. Specifically the user must have the freedom to modify, replace and
redistribute the LGPLed component.

>      Also, attaching .DLL at runtime is a linking (not allowed by GPL for=

> commercial software) or only running (allowed by GPL)?

It's linking. That's how Cygnus (bought by Red Hat) with Cygwin and
TrollTech with QT make parts of their money; they release a DLL under the
GPL so that anyone who wants to sell commercial applications that use the
DLL needs to buy a proprietary license for the DLL.

exceptions:
a) linking is allowed if the DLL is considered part of the OS
b) if a proprietary app uses a proprietary DLL then the *user* is free to
use a GPLed replacement for that DLL if it exists.

Bart