On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 03:18:09PM +1000, skaller wrote:

> I'm wrong, LGPL specifically allows change of licence to GPL.
> Sorry.

Allows, but not requires.

> > The GPL is not an infectious agent. 
> 
> Read this, taken from the OSI hosted copy of GPL:
> 
> "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."

If the other files are already under a license that is more liberal than
the GPL, the license of those files does not have to change in order for
the whole to be licensed.  I've not, until now ever heard that this was the
case.  The authors of the GPL certainly do not intend this.

If I receive a GPL'd program, I must be able to at least do all of the
things that the GPL requires I be able to do.  However, some of the files
in the GPL may be covered under more liberal license, and I am free to take
those modules and do these more liberal things with them.

> In addition, the binary is GPL no matter how you package things,
> and then:

Yes.  That is the point.  That you find the GPL annoying for the reasons
you do does mean it has made its point.

Dave

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners