Re: Licensing Issues

[Brent Fulgham]

--- britt creamer <creambj@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Question for First Issue: 
> Is it possible to have all non FSF Copyright names
> removed from all GNUstep code for this concern?

I know that all software I have developed in GNU
projects has required explicit copyright assignment to
the FSF (with a written document clearly stating the
transfer of ownership).

It's possible that the source you see was not updated
with a proper FSF copyright header.

<rant> 
> Notices: 
> - Black Duck protexIP is a trademark of Black Duck
> Software in the United States, other countries, or
> both.  For more information please refer to
> http://www.blackducksoftware.com

I really despise these kinds of notations in e-mail
and other documents!  I'm not trying to single out
Britt out of meanness, but seing this notice just
reminded me how much I dislike the practice :-)
</rant>

As for the GORM issues -- they are valid concerns
(which are shared for other FSF tools such as GNU
Smalltalk, etc.)  IIRC, Flex/Bison state explicitly
that the generated code is not subject to the GPL.

Doesn't GORM just build a binary blob indicating
classes that should be woken up when the application
starts?  Is this really 'code' or 'linked software'
that would relate to the license concerns?

-Brent