Re: [xml-dev] GPL and XML and Schemas

[Robert Koberg <rob@koberg.com>]

GPL = I will walk around in public nude, you can look, but if you are 
not nude and you cannot take a picture of me and if you do you cannot 
use it in any way. (I could expand on this thought...)

There is no way to know what is appropriate with GPL. They can change 
any way they want. What used to be able to be downloaded and used on a 
machine, can be considered a deployment (liable for 10s/100s/1,000s of 
thousands of dollars) - do you know how you are using GPL software.

(How many GPL-ites believe in DRM?)

Or, bring on some lawyers - isn't that great!

Oh, SUN GPL'd java... hmmmph

Oh, for those who think this is FUD, ask Sleepycat (major player in the 
GPL) if you (being, say, a non-profit but not open source) can develop 
with their DB on your local machine and then download their DB to a 
remote server to use. You can't - not without paying. It is a 
deployment. How many other companies are going to use this (SUN)?

OK. time fo nother glass o wine


Dave Pawson wrote:
> Wrt code, GPL/LGPL seems comprehensible.
> For documentation there is FDL.
> 
> Has anyone gone through the hassle of working out what's appropriate
> for xml, particularly schemas? Doesn't seem to match LGPL definition
> of 'l'ibrary; Isn't documentation and isn't code.
> 
> 
> 
> TIA
>