Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

GNU is Not Unix

+ - Artifex misstates the effects of the GPL 1

Submitted by JanMark
JanMark (547992) writes "Ghostscript was originally written by L Peter Deutsch and released under the GPL. Later, Aladdin Enterprises distributed a Ghostscript fork under a proprietary license. Currently Artifex Software exercises a commercial and a Copyleft license on Ghostscript. A friend of mine asked me if he could distribute Ghostscript as post processor for the output of a proprietary program. I told him, "Under GPL? No problem!" But he pointed me to the Artifex Licensing Information page. They seemed to have a very narrow view on what the GPL allows. So I wrote rms and he agrees with me. Artifex's description of the effects of the GPL is incorrect. IMHO, it even borders on fraud. It also has a very damaging side effect. Lots of people already think that any usage of GPLed software means they have to give away their own software for free (beer and speech). Actually it is the most common misconception I encounter. It makes me wonder maybe the misconception comes from within?"
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Artifex misstates the effects of the GPL

Comments Filter:

You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.