Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> But think about the case of Diebold receiving the ghostscript code
> under the GPL and now facing Artifex's claim that the GPL is non-
> commercial... in effect, meaning that Diebold should have applied
> for Artifex's proprietary license irrespective of the GPL's
> postulate that "nothing else grants you permission" (in GPLv3 speak:
> "nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or
> modify any covered work"). Got it now, Hyman?

Of course. In that case, you are correct and Artifex is wrong, as long
as Diebold is obeying the licensing terms.