No, you don't have it wrong. The GPL is viral, and consequently a lot of commercial entities avoid GPL'd code. Ergo, if Scala and lift were infected with the GPL virus, both would be much less attractive to the commercial world.
On 7/30/08, David MacIver <david.maciver@...> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 1:46 PM, David Pollak <dpp@...> wrote:
>
>
> Sean McDirmid wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure about the licensing implications of that. The source code
>> for the Java collections is GPLed, and that would definitely count as
>> a derivative work.
>
> Just put it out under the same license.
>
> Copyright violations are code theft. It's wrong, not matter what the
> purpose is. Further, if parts of Scala are licensed under the GPL, lift's
I'm not sure I see how that's a copyright violation. I'd been under
the impression it was perfectly legitimate to modify GPLed code or
produce derivative works as long as the results were also GPLed. But I
could be wrong - I don't tend to use the GPL for anything if I can
possibly help it.
--
http://erikengbrecht.blogspot.com/
