On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 15:30:11 -0700 "Alan M. Evans" <ame1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Sigh, you look at the situation and only blame the GPL. If the proprietary license was any different the situation would be remedied just as easily. For instance if the proprietary license said.. here's the source code and you can use it with GPL code but nothing else. That would resolve the problem people in this thread are complaining about too. But it seems people are so indoctrinated with accepting the restrictions placed on them by typical proprietary licenses they can only focus their proposed solutions on how the GPL could be changed to make the situation different. > 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? You're right. I'm not arguing that there is _no_ restriction to using GPL. What i'm arguing is that it still provides so much more freedom of use than most proprietary licenses that it's just crazy to ask GPL to give up the small restrictions it imposes and ask for nothing to be relaxed by the proprietary vendors. It's trying to solve the problem at the wrong end. The reason for this GPL restriction is sound and quite reasonable. If you wouldn't dream of proposing that the proprietary world give up its standard licensing practices, why on earth would you ask that of the GPL world? The GPL is a simple, liberal effective license that gives you great freedoms beyond what you get with other software. If the BSD or MIT licenses are more appealing to you, then by all means join those communities and get involved there. Many people have found that the GPL way is more rewarding, productive and equitable. But demanding that the GPL be changed when it has proved to be quite effective is just nuts. > 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. Nobody but you has mentioned MIT licenses yet in this thread, rather we've been discussing typical proprietary licenses. If you want to discuss the relative merits of GPL vs MIT, we could start a new thread. Sean -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
