Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Jul 2009 08:51 UTC, submitted by PLan
Thread beginning with comment 372108
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
A promise does not imply that the stuff not covered by the promise is forbidden. Therefore, this does not cause GPL incompatibility.
Right, hence my "assuming the 'promise' is needed beyond mere clarification".
So either (a) the 'promise' is redundant and unneeded, and Mono was already unproblematic in whole and in part regardless of it, or (b) the promise is useful, but renders any project actually depending on it (such as parts of Mono) GPL-incompatible?
Edited 2009-07-07 16:09 UTC




Member since:
2008-12-26
I seem to remember the GPL requires it must be possible to distribute modified versions. If the 'promise' only covers full implementations, modified versions which omit part of the Mono stuff are not allowed, thus violating that part of the GPL.
A promise does not imply that the stuff not covered by the promise is forbidden. Therefore, this does not cause GPL incompatibility.