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.
|
|
| Talk to a lawyer if you arent one. The questions and answers related to
| the licenses in Red Hat Magazine was reviewed by the Red Hat counsel

Yeah -- and it shows: I completely agree with what they said.

The application of that answer which relates to one program with GPL
code "included within it" to all cases of "proprietary products" which
may interface to GPL code in different ways is what's wrong.

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

iD8DBQFCr/o1jKeDCxMJCTIRAveLAJ0cMp3+M2uO8DVtpZbraQLILZS/jQCfRY0Z
gnRRQ0Xt9M9yQrmfyIJOD0A=
=UHLQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----