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.