>>If you include >>a free spare in your car, does that imply that your whole car >>is now free ? > > > If that was the condition of giving you that spare and you accepted > that: yes, of course. You decided to enter the deal, so you have to > fulfill your part. Otherwise refuse the tire. Note this comment well, as it is *THE* basis for the GPL. If you are writing something, and you want to add a new "feature", you have a few choices: 1) Do without the feature, and pay for it by losing market share, higher support costs, frustration... 2) Buy some proprietary package that implements the feature, and pay $ (upfront or royalty) for it. 3) Force your customers to individually go out and buy the feature from someone else, while you write your code to "use" that feature if it finds it already installed... 4) Write the feature yourself - paying for it in sweat equity. 5) Search the open source archives for the feature, read and understand its copyright and licensing terms, and if they are agreeable to you, incorporate it into your code. Some of this code is made available under the GPL. 6) ... Making a choice implies that you have looked at all the options, and factored in the various costs, benefits, restrictions, licensing, and royalty issues. The costs of including propriatary code are usually measured in "$". The costs of including open source are measured in "obligations" and "expected community behaviors". Paraphrasing Stallman, if you want to gain the benefits of the readily available GPL'd sources to enhance your work, you must be willing to "pay" for it by making your derivitave works available under the GPL as well. If you are not willing to pay that cost, don't make that choice. If you do make that choice, you don't have any right to complain about the cost. After all, you *could* have written the stuff yourself. -John -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu