Re: Plans for 2.8 - GNOME Managed Language Services?

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Sat, 2004-03-27 at 13:28 -0500, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> > Actually my previous mail mentioned the wrong GPL paragraph. The RAND
> > incompatability is even more clear that so, point seven spells is out
> > clear:
> > 
> > 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
> > infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
> > conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
> > otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
> > excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute
> > so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and
> > any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not
> > distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would
> > not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who
> > receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you
> > could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from
> > distribution of the Program.
> 
> Great, so RAND + Royalty free is perfectly fine with the GPL.

As followup (not contradiction) to Miguel, it is probably worth reading
Eben Moglen's opinion on this:

http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss opensource org/msg06281.html

He basically seems to claim that RAND and GPL are not inherently
incompatible, but it is a fairly nuanced discussion that I urge everyone
to read for themselves, with some thoughtful points relevant to our
current discussion.

Luis