Miles Nordin wrote:

> I thought we called the GPL a virus-license because if you make changes to
> GPL'ed code and distribute them you must offer the GPL as a license option
> for your changes.

Most public licenses are considered to be viruses of one form or
another.

> If that's true, there's no need to obtain consent.  The fact that people
> who modified the GNU toolchain released their changes to the public means
> that they are required to offer their changes under the GNU license.
> 
> See Bill Stundemund's earlier post for better detail--I just thought I'd
> quickly point out a simpler license interpretation before we start our
> usual legal-frustration self-flogging.  Am I interpreting this right?

See:

http://sourceware.cygnus.com/gdb/submit.html

as an example of the set of requirements that need to be met before the
FSF will consider a contribution.

	enjoy,
		Andrew