Re: early review of RH 9 (Shrike)

[Gordon Messmer <yinyang@xxxxxxxxx>]

Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 04:02:21PM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>
> > > It might be possible with enough money to get a license for any/all
> > > GPLed software. This would result in a situation like that of QT -- if
> > > you want to make proprietary software, you'd still have to buy your own
> > > license. This is maybe improbable now, but as the technology gets older,
> > > it could happen.
> >
> > No, the GPL prohibits such terms.  Unless the software is completely 
> > free of encumbrances, the GPL is not a suitable license for this software.
>
>
> That's not true.

Well, F@&#!  Why didn't I think of that?  Thanks for clarifying the 
situation with your outstanding, clear understanding of the GPL.

> > In order for software to be distributed under the GPL (not as Free 
> > Software, but under the GPL specifically), the persons/parties to whom 
> > you distribute the software must be able to legally distribute the 
> > software without royalties.
>
>
> The terms I propose would allow _exactly_ that. See the Open RTLinux Patent
> License for an FSF-approved example.

The RTLinux patent license grants unlimited distribution rights to GPL'd 
software, even if you sell it for profit.  Thompson offers no such 
license, to the best of my knowledge.



--
Phoebe-list mailing list
Phoebe-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list