Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 28 May 2002 10:23:43 -0700 (PDT) | | From | Andre Hedrick <> | | Subject | Re: business models [was patent stuff] |
| |
There is a major problem with your argument.
"FREE" is covered in BLACK's Book.
"RELEASE" is not. RMS specifically picked "RELEASE" in the GPL to force a litigation in court. "RELEASE" is subjective to the reviewing body.
Cheers,
On 28 May 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-05-28 at 18:13, Adam J. Richter wrote: > > You could license all programs that consist entirely of > > free software. That way, BSD, LGPL, and MPL software that did > > not link in proprietary software would be allowed too, but your > > example of a proprietary program that linked in the BSD'ed > > libpatent.o/c would not be covered by this permission. > > Define "free software" using only legally defined phrases which have > precedent. In fact put four people in a room and get them to define free > software. > > > software would address issues like GPL'ed software that contains > > content that is GPL compatible but not GPL'ed, future versions of > > If its linked then it is GPL in the linked form, otherwise you wouldn't > be allowed to link it > > Alan > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |