Re: Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

[Les Mikesell <lesmikesell gmail com>]

Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > First, a copyleft license by nature,
> > Can you define copyleft? I don't think that term helps clear up any 
> > misunderstandings.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/

Not much there about prohibiting combinations with other licenses.

> >  > cannot be compatible with just any
> > > license, but only with licenses that follow certain rules, for obvious
> > > reasons. 
> > Those reasons are not at all obvious. There is never any need to 
> > restrict combinations of works.
>
> You cannot allow combination with licenses that have provisions that
> conflict with your license, otherwise such provisions would become
> useless, it's that simple.

I guess that depends on your concept of 'useless'.  If the point is to 
prevent better works from being available as a result of such 
combinations, then I guess I'd agree, but I don't see why anyone wants 
that.  The politics discussed here 
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html sort of leans that way 
but I think it is wrong.

> > > Being GPL compatible is not difficult at all, in most cases modern
> > > licenses that are not GPL (at least v3) compatible, are not by choice,
> > > so you should really look at both sides of the equation, you cannot
> > > blame the GPL for lack of compatibility, compatibility is always a two
> > > sides story.
> > When the GPL is the only one placing requirements on the other 
> > components it is not a two sided story.
>
> Can you provide an example of an incompatible license where the
> incompatibility lies only within the GPL itself ?

I can't think of any other license where the incompatibility would not 
be only within the GPL, at least in every case where the components can 
be distributed separately.  No other license that I know of has a 'work 
as a whole' clause to restrict a library from being linked with a main 
program or other libraries that are under different terms.

--
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell gmail com