Board index » kylix » Re: The future..

2004-01-21 03:55:28 AM
kylix0
"Mike Mormando" wrote:
from asking money for it. It even allows you to ask money for GPL'ed
software written by others ( But why would I pay you if I can get it for
free? But the GPL allowes you to sell me GPL'ed software without one line of
your own code.). The GPL however forces you, when you distribute the GPL'ed
software, also to distribute the source. Even your own source when it is
(partly) based on GPL'ed software! This doesn't stop you from writing
proprietary software wich runs on GPL'ed software like Linux. As long as you
don't base it (partly) on GPL'ed software. You can base your own software on
GPL'ed software without making your code public by not distributing it. Much
in-house developed software, not ment to be distributed, is based on GPL'ed
software.
Peter
PS. Imagine what happens when Uncle Bill accidentally includes some GPL'ed
software in Windows without re-inventing the wheel again ;-).
 

"Peter Agricola" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
The problem is the distribution terms of the Lindows OS license; an OS which
contains a lot of GPL'ed code. Terms which differ pretty dramatically from
the GPL.
If I add a proprietary shell script to a Linux distribution, can I then
re-license and re-distribute the whole thing on my terms rather than the
GPL?
 

"JQP" wrote:
linux kernel with base tools (like X) and a proprietary desktop and Win32
runtime they are delevering not one product but a collection of products.
Every product can have it's own licence. The prohibition of redistributing
can not be applied to the GPL'ed core but it can to their own
desktop/runtime, which is what people consider to be Lindows.
Peter
 

{smallsort}

Linux" and not "the future move into open source". We are a Borland
group and neither Borland nor a great part of their customers wants to
move into the open source world. They just need to provide their
offerings to customers that moved their desktops to be Linux based.
-Michael
 

"delivering it only with the source code".
The "sticky" GPL for "Linux" (the Kernel) says that everything that is
statically linked to the Kernel automatically gets GPLed, too. This is
not at all the case for any _applications_ (Like user programs or
installation tools). Otherwise we could not sell closed source Borland
compiled programs to our customers and would have no need for Kylix and
such.
-Michael
 

JQP wrote:
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
 

JQP wrote:
Martin
 

"Bob { Goddard }" wrote:
Please be more clear.
Peter
 

JQP wrote:
source by it's nature ;-).
Micha.
 

Peter Agricola wrote:
It quite clearly states that their license includes all others
for the products contained within it.
You may also want to read part "1.2 Third Party Agreements".
It also states that programs may be subject to others
licenses and that these take precedence over Lindows.
Like I said, JQP spouts FUD again.
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
 

"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:bulre8$jdobo$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
"per seat" or "per computer"? If so, please explain why?
 

"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
 

JQP wrote:
which states you cannot charge for software it applies to.
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
 

"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:bulvpq$j20j9$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Lindows license is reconciled with the GPL. You answered my question.
Where's the FUD in this?
problem".
 

*could* do. Since m$ has turned the CLR and C# over to a standards
body anyone is free to clone them. The problem is winForms and
ADO.net are not. This is where Borland comes in and saves the day.
The make the VCL and dbExpress along with their BDP run on both m$.net
and mono. I've got to imagine since they gave away things like the
TDataset abstraction in their patent swap with m$ that they got
somtething back. Like maybe rights to port .net?