Fedora Freedom and linux-libre
Simo Sorce
ssorce at redhat.com
Mon Jun 30 19:46:27 UTC 2008
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 14:40 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Simo Sorce wrote:
> >
> > Sorry but this comment is either grossly imprecise and dictated by hurry
> > in writing up[, or it underlines a gross misunderstanding of the GPL. In
> > either case, as it is just false.
> >
> > 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/
> > 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.
> > 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 ?
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list