On 2009-08-20 at 22:06:30 [+0200], Urias McCullough <umccullough@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Axel Dörfler<axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: [...] > I can put together email for the liba52 guys at least, explaining our > position, and asking their advice. If they are of the opinion that > Haiku's media kit, or whatever, must also be released under the terms > of the GPL, then I think we'll have less ground to stand on moving > forward. Even if we were totally legal, we have no good reason to > upset the developers of the code we have utilized, as I believe we > have no intentions to create a disruption in the Open Source community > over such a small issue :) > > Would someone else like to review it privately before I send it? or > shall I publish it here? Here is fine I gues. > >> The FAQs I linked to above make exactly that distinction. And no, the > >> end > >> result would not be quite the same, at least not in terms of > >> efficiency/performance. > > > > Yes, the FAQ. Not the license - this makes this non-existent for a > > lawyer. > > Right, the FAQ on FSF is mostly an opinion piece based on the FSF > interpretation of the license. I would consider this a somewhat > "biased" view, TBH. Er, the FSF wrote the darn license, though. So their interpretation is as close as you can get to the actual intention of the legal text. CU, Ingo