--- Raymond Toy <toy@rtp.ericsson.se> wrote:
>
> I was thinking of the case of GNU GMP being used for some proprietary
> crypto package. The claim made at the time was that since the
> package
> could only be used with GMP, the whole package had to be released
> under the GPL because, the argument went, it could only be used with
> GMP. The issue was finally resolved by someone creating a separate
> MP package that could be used and the argument no longer held.
>
> But the GIMP is a precedence that allows it and if the FSF hasn't
> tried to change it, I guess Maxima is safe.
Actually, as I look closer, that part of Gimp appears to be LGPL. So I
guess that doesn't count. My bad.
This part of the GPL seems to relate to the case in question:
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
it."
Wouldn't that cover it? As long as their stuff is distributed
separately, and not derived from Maxima source code?
CY
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/