Re: Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

[Andrew Haley <aph redhat com>]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2008, Matthew Saltzman <mjs clemson edu> wrote:
> 
>> Then can we at least agree that there are sometimes unfortunate
>> consequences to the GPL's failure to permit one to share a work
>> combining two pieces of *free* software because of relatively minor[1]
>> license incompatibilities?
> 
> Yeah, it's unfortunate when this happens.

Definitely.  It's something that GPL V3 has tried hard to fix,
wherever possible.

However, I must point out that in some cases post-GPL licences
have *deliberately* been worded in a way that makes them incompatible
with GPL code.  Whatever the consequences, it's not appropriate to
blame the GPL for those.

>> In fact, I think it's arguable that there are sometimes unfortunate
>> consequences to the GPL's failure to permit one to share a work that
>> makes use of a GPL library and a proprietary library.
> 
> Sparing a user from becoming dependent on a piece of proprietary
> software might even be a sacrifice for the user, but it's actually an
> advantage for the user and for society in the long run.

Perhaps.

I think we have to think about, for example, gcc ports.  The fact that
people who do ports of gcc are forced to ship the source for their
changes has made a lot of free code available that wouldn't have been
if they had been permitted to link proprietary code into gcc.

Andrew.