OT: GPL Question

[Andy Green]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rahul Sundaram wrote:

| I wasnt answering the original question. I was only replying to one of
| the comments specifically about the possibility about including GPL'ed
| code in a proprietary product. You can include it but not redistribute
| the result

That's exactly what I am disagreeing with.

Think about it, if someone is selling a Windows PC and they stick a
GPL'd utility/app  on it to make it more attractive, you're saying that
is an impossible violation???  If they include a GPL'd wallpaper they
have to GPL Windows???

What about a Linux PC that is sold with the nVidia binary?

In the same way, a "proprietary product" can easily be based on a GPL'd
Linux and be running bash, etc, etc, but the main logic can be in a
completely proprietary app.  That proprietary app can link to LGPL
libraries too, so long as they provide the LGPL sources on demand.  And
that "proprietary product" can include other full GPL goodies, in
addition to Linux itself and so on, so long as the proprietary parts are
not bound to them too closely, ie, compiled to them.

Many, many embedded products are here already and are coming with a
mixture of GPL'd and proprietary code.  So long as the GPL parts get
honoured there is NO PROBLEM.

- -Andy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCr/cPjKeDCxMJCTIRAoHpAJ45hQ+mDTx9JlLhf1j17jxFOslFygCfdVf5
/YCDxGq+94T4spL91J1kIG4=
=3s83
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----