On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:56:20 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Ha ha!
The relevant text from this is:
For non-commercial use, Artifex licences Ghostscript to the public
free of charge under the GNU GPL.
which looks to me like their lawyers are confused because the GPL
imposes no restrictions on how code is *used*. They're going to have
to show that Diebold linked ghostscript code to their own code and
then didn't fulfill GPL obligations. Or else prove that Diebold used a
version of ghostscript that *isn't* GPLed.