|The stupid question is the question not asked|
Re: Re: Re: Errr.. no..by mdupont (Scribe)
|on Jun 20, 2002 at 16:03 UTC||Need Help??|
It is a difficult subject.
I wont be distributing the modified versions of the GPL software, but exporting them as web services only for GPLed users. To protect them from usage by non-free software, the RGPL is applied to the XML output.
I cannot limit the output of a GPL program, or change its license, but as a webservice, the gcc under GPLv2 does not have to be redistributed in source.
I can offer the data needed to the free software development community as an incentive to write free code.
>Another problem with this, which hadn't occured to me >before, is that trying to change the license with a patch >is a very good way of breaking the GPL itself.
I intend on patching the GPLed program with a private patch, extracting XML, which has no license, and licensing the output as RGPL via a webservice. Because the GPL program would never be redistributed there is not a problem. Because there is no linkage, there is not derived work.
The authors will not WANT the XML patch distributed, because then anyone can then dump out the trees.