Subject: Re: When to evaluate dual licenses (was: license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?)
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:58:00 -0800

Quoting Chuck Swiger (chuck@codefab.com):

> In that case, the Obj-C extensions involved a bunch of code changes to  
> the GCC sources such as the precompiler and the addition of the Obj-C  
> runtime library, and I think it was clear that these changes could not  
> be separated out from GCC.  I believe that NeXT was fairly obliged by  
> the GPL to release their changes in that case. [1]

This is a good history and appreciated -- except that NeXT, Inc. was not
actually obligated to release anything:  It could have merely ceased
infringement.  It elected instead to release code in order to retain the
ability to keep shipping.

(I'm no copyleft partisan, domain name notwithstanding.  I merely note
that assertions about forced release are inaccurate, at least in US law,
as that is not a remedy available against copyright tort-feasors.
IANAL.  TINLA.  YADA.)  
 
-- 
Cheers,                                     Ceci n'est pas une pipe:   |
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com