matju at artengine.ca
Tue Sep 29 04:21:47 CEST 2009
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, dmotd wrote:
> i'm just looking at the license now and i'm not sure that this is
> acutally a problem.. looks like an open style license.. not for resale,
> non-commerical educaton use only, must credit authors and distribute
GPL forbids any clauses about non-commercial, non-military,
education-only, and any other clauses restricting the freedom to use.
(section 7 out of 17)
But some other documents may be easier to interpret (but the following are
about what is a free license, they aren't about GPL-compatibility per se).
FSF's Free Software Definition lists four essential freedoms, the first
one being: «The freedom to run the program, for any purpose».
OSI's Open Source Definition's sixth item (out of ten) states: «the
license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
specific field of endeavor.»
I think that it's clear enough.
What's more difficult to grasp is how all the different licenses interact
with each other when you use or don't use plugins together...
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
More information about the Pd-list