At 01:45 PM 07/20/2000 -0700, you wrote:

>That's not my understanding. I'm trying to be helpful, to let you know
>that GPL does not mean what you think it means. But it's up to you.
>Just don't say we didn't warn you when MySQL AB comes to take your
>application. ;-)

I have read the license several times. I am of course no Lawyer and I
recognize that there may be many ways to interpret most of the words on the
license (especially by lawyers). It all depends on the definition of what
the license means by a "derived work" work. Here are some quotes that I
have been relying on.

GNU: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. "
ME: If my code does not copy, distribute or modify the original source I am OK.

GNU:"You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and
disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this
License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients
of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."
ME: As long as I don't modify the code and include the relevant docs I can
distribute it.

GNU:"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a
storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the
scope of this License. "
ME: I can bundle a GNU app with mine and not be effected.

My gestalt on the whole license basically says this. If you use our code to
make something then you must GNU your code. This seems very fair to me. If
I want to close my source I should either come up with the code myself or
use some code in the public domain or another license. Maybe a good example
of this is writing a closed app with perl. Even though I use perl (an open
source program) it is possible for me to make a closed source program
written in perl.

> > I seriously doubt that once a code is GPLed it
> > can be un GPLed.
>
>Perl, for example, uses two different license schemes. Perl is
>distributed explicitly stating that one can use _either_ the GNU GPL or
>the "Artistic License" which is a Perl-specific license. They state
>that users can choose which license suits them.

I hadn't thought of that. That certainly complicates things doesn't it?

:wq
Tim Uckun
Due Diligence Inc. http://www.diligence.com/ Americas Background
Investigation Expert.
If your company isn't doing background checks, maybe you haven't considered
the risks of a bad hire.