Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Legal Notice Served
Re: Legal Notice Served
From: BlueChip <cs_bluechip_at_webtribe.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:43:28 +0100
>>Err, you could just have a GPL'd version, and a none GPL'd version...
>>They'd be the same source and binary, except that one didn't have the GPL
>>attached to it...
>Not really. Every plugin that is made for Rockbox is considered a derivate
>work and as such it must be distributed with a GPL-compatible license.
>It doesn't necessarily have to be GPL, but the license may not "impose
>further restrictions" than GPL.
Does that mean that a further license could REMOVE restrictions? Such as
"if anybody wants to use my code they can do so with no penalty or
requirement to release anything they use it for"?
Which is a far more preferable licence (to me, anyway) than the "copyleft
infection process" that GPL comes burdened with. Free as in "no strings
>So, if you distribute a Rockbox version or a rockbox plugin, you must
>provide source code upon request.
Which is precisely how the Klondike source code was available from day 1 >:(
> = http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
> Daniel Stenberg -- http://rockbox.haxx.se/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/
Received on 2004-06-14