[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Simo Sorce wrote:

First, a copyleft license by nature,
Can you define copyleft? I don't think that term helps clear up any misunderstandings.


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
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

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]