"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/