[LAD] Impro-Visor packages now on SF

[drew Roberts]

On Sunday 26 July 2009 09:31:10 laseray at gmail.com wrote:
> It does not make any difference whether the copyright holder of
> Impro-Visor declares it as GPL or not. Once you use GPL code in
> your application it too must be GPL. That is the viral nature of GPL.
> Again, FSF and the FAQ on GPL. Read it.

I am not so sure this is the case. I offer this RMS quote:

"Many GNU libraries are covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License, but 
not all. One GNU library which is covered by the ordinary GNU GPL is 
Readline, which implements command-line editing. I once found out about a 
non-free program which was designed to use Readline, and told the developer 
this was not allowed. He could have taken command-line editing out of the 
program, but what he actually did was rerelease it under the GPL. Now it is 
free software."

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/pragmatic.html

Notethis program used the GPL readline and was being distributed (I think) and 
yet RMS calls it a non-Free proram which means it could not have been GPL at 
that time. Correct? He says that at that point the program's author had 
options... One of which was taking the command-line editing out of the 
program and seemingly not making it GPL. The option chosen was to leave in 
the ability and make it GPL.

and these faq links out of interest to others:

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the 
public?

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a 
nondisclosure agreement?

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA

Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure 
agreement?

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA

all the best,

drew