[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANWtx028OHkgHSs=EJn6JD8ec7spdCj_N4HJCb9GOzikt=gF5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 09:53:27 -0400
From: Rich Rumble <richrumble@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: GPL license is not free at all
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Aleksey Cherepanov
<aleksey.4erepanov@...il.com> wrote:
> GPL is a copyleft license: it forces you to redistribute derivative
> work under the same license. In GPL v2 it is expressed in section 4.
9 times out of 10... There appear to be exceptions.
> It means that you could not add any additional limitation of freedom.
> Adding unrar with its limitation violates this.
>
> Does it make sense for you?
Who knew freedom had so many restrictions!! I've also read the
GPLv(1,2,3) [copyleft]aren't as cut and dry as that because fair use
and partial-copyleft allow exemptions to portions of code to be
licensed separately. The lack of clarity is infuriating, in on breath
I can see it as a violation then the next I have no idea... there are
exceptions and allowances for dual-licenses, and linking code a
certain way...
Better safe than sorry, change to some other (free)library seems to be
the take away, because a lay person can't comprehend what looks to be
a straight forward issue. I am that lay person, for others I'm sure
it's cut and dry. I'm actually going to review my own code projects
and switch licenses now, I've been too naive with regard to GPL
licenses.
-rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
