[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  Jim Thompson <jim at netgate dot com>
 To:  Scott Ullrich <sullrich at gmail dot com>
 Cc:  m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall-dev] Re: [m0n0wall] Survey results
 Date:  Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:57:42 -1000
Scott Ullrich wrote:

>You start to go down a slipperly slope when you start introducing GNU
>licensed items which would then require that all php code and such be
>changed to reflect this position.
I don't want to take the position of GPL apologist on a BSD-inspired 
list, nor am I avocating including GPL licensed code in m0n0wall (or 
m0n0bsd, or pfSense, or...) but this represents a fundamental 
misunderstanding of the terms of the GPL.  

Short version:  Um, Nope! 

Combining 'A' and 'B' (especially in a non-executable format) does not 
automatically make 'A' subject to the license of 'B' (nor vice versa).  
I can expound in depth on the legal theory that supports this (as well 
as the FSF's stated position), but that subject is so off-topic for this 
list that I'll merely let it rest until further agitated.