From: Mike McCarty (jmccarty_at_ssd.usa.alcatel.com)
Date: 2002-04-02 18:22:00
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Adam Dunkels wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Monday 01 April 2002 13.24, you wrote:
> I believe your interpretation is slightly wrong. The GPL forces you to make
> the full sourcecode avaliable for binaries where (parts of) the code is
> covered by the GPL, but it doesn't force you to actually relicense the whole
> code. As long as the non-GPL parts are freely distributable, everything works
> fine.
[snip]
It says
But when you distribute the same sections
as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this
License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of
who wrote it.
What is there to misinterpret about that? It specifically states that
the work as a whole, and all those part of it, but be licensed under
the terms of THIS LICENSE (i.e GPL).
Maybe I don't understand your point.
Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2002-04-02 18:22:47 CEST