Scott Ullrich wrote:

>On 11/10/05, Jim Thompson <jim at netgate dot com> wrote:
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>Yes of course.   I'm simply making remarks to this comment:
>
>"I talked to the appweb people they said that if m0n0wall is based on the GNU
>license we can use it free of charge."
>  
>
Oh.   Well of course.  I agree with and endorse your position.

Note that the position of appweb is not GPL-compliant.  :-)