[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LGPL or GPL+"plugins welcome" ?
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: LGPL or GPL+"plugins welcome" ? |
Date: |
Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:11:24 +0200 |
Werner Almesberger wrote:
[...]
> - if using the GPL, we'd have to include a permission for
> non-free plugins,
No. That's unneeded. It has really nothing to do with copyright.
> just like the Linux kernel reluctantly permits
> binary-only loadable modules
The kernel is licensed under the GPL without any exceptions.
regards,
alexander.
- LGPL or GPL+"plugins welcome" ?, Werner Almesberger, 2004/07/05
- Re: LGPL or GPL+"plugins welcome" ?, Brian Gough, 2004/07/05
- Re: LGPL or GPL+"plugins welcome" ?,
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: LGPL or GPL+"plugins welcome" ?, Stefaan A Eeckels, 2004/07/06
- Re: LGPL or GPL+"plugins welcome" ?, Ben Pfaff, 2004/07/06
- Re: LGPL or GPL+"plugins welcome" ?, Stefaan A Eeckels, 2004/07/06
- Re: LGPL or GPL+"plugins welcome" ?, David Kastrup, 2004/07/06
- Re: LGPL or GPL+"plugins welcome" ?, Stefaan A Eeckels, 2004/07/06
- Re: LGPL or GPL+"plugins welcome" ?, David Kastrup, 2004/07/06
- Re: LGPL or GPL+"plugins welcome" ?, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/06
- Re: LGPL or GPL+"plugins welcome" ?, Stefaan A Eeckels, 2004/07/06
- Re: LGPL or GPL+"plugins welcome" ?, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/06
- Re: LGPL or GPL+"plugins welcome" ?, Stefaan A Eeckels, 2004/07/06