FC4 or FC5

[Alan M. Evans]

On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 14:55, Sean wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:36:02 -0500
> Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Oh, then you don't understand the GPL.  You can't share
> > anything unless the 'work as a whole' meets GPL terms.
> 
> No, you don't understand it.  If you're trying to distribute
> some 'work as a whole' that includes _other peoples GPL code_
> then you're trying to distribute something you don't have a right
> to distribute unless you abide by the very liberal GPL license.
> You can't distribute a copy of MS Office without a proper agreement
> with MS either.

Nobody but you is arguing about *what* the GPL says. We only say that in
some specific cases, quite reasonable uses are forbidden by the GPL. And
that's a pity. The GPL doesn't differentiate between other code using
GPL code and GPL code using other code. While the former seems quite
wrong, the latter seems not so bad in some cases.

By way of illustration, whats the difference between: 1. GPL code using
MIT code, and 2. MIT code using GPL code? The answer is that (1) can be
done by relicensing the MIT code and (2) can't be done. So which license
is preventing integration here? 

We all know that we are free to not use GPL code if that's what we want.
You can stop repeating it. Many developers have opted for just that. But
claiming that it was the restrictions of the MIT license that prevented
it all from working is the kind of doublethink that would make Stallman
proud.