Subject: Re: Meaning of "combined work"?
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 20:18:21 -0800
Sun, 31 Dec 2000 20:18:21 -0800
on Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 06:00:39PM -0500, Jonathan S. Shapiro ( wrote:
> wrote:
> > I would probably take a stab at addressing your issues through a
> > dual-license or special exemption approach.
> Can you briefly explain how such a special exemption might work? Also,
> how is such an exemption consistent with GPL?

You're verging closely on asking for legal advice I can't provide by law
or qualifications.

For exemptions, examples would be the Linux kernel.  For dual licensing,
the Mozilla or OpenOffice projects.

My understanding in both cases is that the code transitivity is one-way
only.  If the exemption is either applying new terms to the GNU GPL, or
lessening its terms, then it's not possible to incorporate foreign GPL
code without making other arrangements with the author(s) of the code.
Though this tends to work against Gillmore's dictum:  free software is
about reducing the transaction cost of co÷peration.

As I said earlier, the GNU GPL is an ideological license, and the
ideology it promotes is that of free software.  Fairly effectively --
where it may be slow, it's a one way street.  A ratchet, if you will.
It's possible to stretch around the edges a bit, but if you're trying to
(1) use software under the terms of the GPL and (2) allow its use in a
manner inconsistant with the GPL, you're entering into the have/eat cake

I don't know how possible it is to define portions of your OS,
environment, or project, in such a way that some codesharing is
possible.  I do feel that intent and current effect of the GNU GPL are
being stretched by technology.

Sorry, I don't think that's very helpful.

Karsten M. Self <>
 Evangelist, Zelerate, Inc.            
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?      There is no K5 cabal

["application/pgp-signature" not shown]