-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 13 Jul 2004 at 9:09, Reinhard Mueller wrote:
Am Die, den 13.07.2004 schrieb Niall Douglas um 1:46:
I'll just short circuit the answer to this because I thought the same as you until quite recently. The GPL's wording only mandates that derived code must supply its source, not that the derived code must also be GPLed.
I'll firstly point out that I argued precisely what you've just argued over a period of three weeks. It turned out that where we were taking contrary meanings from the same text was because I had not noticed a very small phrase.
GPL, 2.b You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
The key phrase here is "... under the terms of this License". This is NOT the same as "... under this License".
It might seem like splitting hairs, but apparently this phrase legally makes the difference between requiring that all derived works must also be GPLed and merely requiring that the license for all derived works must be *compatible* with the GPL.
Now I am not a lawyer, but this person who I argued with for three weeks was heavily plugged into the whole FSF/GNU thing and while I'm not saying that there are members on this list who aren't, I did advance precisely your arguments and I discovered I was wrong. I just checked my email archives, I had that argument with Alex Hudson who I think is/was on this group? I've CC-ied him anyway.
Cheers, Niall