I knew that bit was right. The bit I was unclear on was the copyright issue.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Erik Engbrecht
<
erik.engbrecht@...> wrote:
> 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/
