|
|
| Author |
Message |
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
 Posted: Aug 17, 2004 2:15pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Rob, not true. Your code can be whatever license you want, so long as it is compatible with the GPL. Why don't you people read the damn site!!!
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLModuleLicense :
| Quote: | If I add a module to a GPL-covered program, do I have to use the GPL as the license for my module?
The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released under the GPL. So your module has to be available for use under the GPL.
But you can give additional permission for the use of your code. You can, if you wish, release your program under a license which is more lax than the GPL but compatible with the GPL. The license list page gives a partial list of GPL-compatible licenses. |
Once again, it's right in the FAQ. Your code can be released under a GPL compatible license and added to a GPL program. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rob_
Idler
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 309
|
| Posted: Aug 18, 2004 1:05am Post subject: |
|
|
codemastr, how about reading what i said? a patch is not a sperate module....
however, reading what _you_ just pasted as a quote from the GPL site...
| Quote: |
If I add a module to a GPL-covered program, do I have to use the GPL as the license for my module?
The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released under the GPL. So your module has to be available for use under the GPL.
|
Yes you can put your code out under another, less lax "GPL Compatiable" license, but still "your module has to be available for use under the GPL." - so where exactly was i wrong, even assuming that i said module instead of patch?
now... why don't you read the damn site!!! - instead of telling others to do so? - and while your re-reading, read my previous post again, and note that i didnt say anything at all about modules.
Slightly back to point, the original artistic license is not GPL compatiable, however version 2 is :) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Aug 18, 2004 10:30am Post subject: |
|
|
| I guess you don't know what a module is then because a patch is *definately* a module. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob_
Idler
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 309
|
| Posted: Aug 18, 2004 10:54am Post subject: |
|
|
www.dictionary.com :
Module:
# Computer Science. A portion of a program that carries out a specific function and may be used alone or combined with other modules of the same program.
Patch:
# Computer Science. A piece of code added to software in order to fix a bug, especially as a temporary correction between two releases.
yup, no diffrence, regardless of the diffrence between a patch and a module, that isnt the topic of this thread, the GPL is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Aug 18, 2004 12:15pm Post subject: |
|
|
Since when did dictionary.com become the authority on computer science definitions?
| Quote: | | A piece of code added to software in order to fix a bug |
Come on, you're a programmer, at least read what you pasted! We both know a patch is not limited to fixing bugs. That right there should have told you the definition was wrong!
And this is related to the GPL. It says that using a compatible license for a patch IS allowed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob_
Idler
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 309
|
| Posted: Aug 18, 2004 12:17pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yes it is allowed, "as long as" the module is _also_ available for use under the GPL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Register
Log in
