license clarification was: Re: [TriLUG] borland

[Andrew C. Oliver]

> > I will continue using Borland products in the future where there are
no
> > adequate *free* alternatives.  (BTW I prefer non-GPL *free* where
> > possible since GPL actually imposes more restrictions on me then
other
> > *free* licenses -- like making non *free* stuff with it ;-D  *puts
on
> > his flame proof jacket*)

> Urgh. I know I know better than to enter a possible GPL/BSD license
> flamewar. But I just can't help myself.

> I don't want to argue whether either the GPL or BSD/X11/Apache
licenses
> are "truely free", as that this flamewar is the "Serbonian bog" into
which
> whole armies of hackers have fallen into without a trace.

> But I do want to correct the impression that your statement might
leave,
> which is that you can't write non-GPL (or even proprietary) software >
with
> GPL'd tools. You can write proprietary software with gcc/g++ or perl
or
> with flex/bison, etc. Pretty much any GPL'd software tool is usable on
> any
> sort of project. The GPL only prevents you from distributing code
under
> that license as proprietary code, or *including that code in your own
> proprietary software*.

True.  Thats not the impression I meant to leave.  I meant code which
would *include* GPL'd code that would enact the derived works clauses
that our good friends in Redmond have names the "virus" clause.

I've no wish to debate licenses.  I merely stated my preference.  

-Andy

> cheers,
> jem.

-- 
www.superlinksoftware.com
www.sourceforge.net/projects/poi - port of Excel format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html 
			- fix java generics!


The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh