On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 11:49:10PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So why haven't we seen this enforced, or has it happend but quietly? > > I do note that there is no kemacs.., but there are things like > > krpm.. hrm.. I'd have to look at the list, but... one would think that > > at least RMS would enforce things under the FSF's protection. So are > > we missing something? > > If you'd manage to read the copyright on rpm, you'd see: > > (1) It's written by redhat, not fsf,
I know, it was just an example. > (2) It's available both under GPL and LGPL. Bad example, apparently. There are plenty of others, I would assume. Just popped into my head on the way out the door.. I guess I have learned my lesson about doing that:-( My main point was this: if the GPL has this clause about the components of a program being free, what with the large quantity of programs being Qtized, why haven't we seen any action? Ciao, -- David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
