Antonio Olivares wrote:
For reasons I've already covered, I'd
rather see distributions
minimize the GPL-encumbered code and use things from the
*bsd or
opensolaris projects instead - except for gcc which I
don't think has a
less restricted counterpart. Then the GNU project could
just go its own
way in the isolation the GPL demands while the rest of the
world
cooperates and interoperates at the component level.
--
While ideally that would be nice, it won't happen :(
Which license should be used then, if the above happens?
Licenses are difficult to change on existing works, so like now, you'd
have to keep the license as is on each component that you choose. It
only becomes an issue when you start combining components, and then only
with the GPL'd ones since the others don't care if you link with someone
else's library or vice versa.
There are other free licenses/open source licenses around, but which is the best one to use?
As I understand, if one uses Linux
Linux <===> GPL
Yes, that means you can't swap driver/filesystem code with old-style BSD
or cddl licensed versions, but it doesn't specifically mean you have to
use GNU/GPL'd userland code.
*BSD <==> BSD/GPL(for KDE/Gnome other DE)
Solaris <===> CDDL
Pieces can keep these licenses and still be redistributed together.
GPL'd parts can be aggregated in the distro and under certain
circumstances, certain GPL'd things can be linked with others (there's
the weird standard OS component exception but then you have to
distribute the parts separately). The *bsd's tend to avoid including
GPL'd work wherever there is a choice since their philosophy is to avoid
the restrictions but it's not a strict requirement at the standalone
program level.
A license that is often mentioned indirectly is the Beerware license
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerware
>
Would that one be accepted as an appropriate license?
As long as it doesn't place requirements on other components it works
for me.
People have to pay bills, support their families, gas up their vehicles, from where would the motivation come to continue giving up some work for no $, Which is the best way to continue and support your favorite OS and applications at the same time?
That's why commercial licenses exist, and why it's good for code that
you wish to be distributed freely to play nicely with them. There are
plenty of people who appreciate having affordable commercial software
choices that may be better than the free alternatives.
There are many revisions to the GPL as of now, and I believe that one was posted on this list, how can cooperation be achieved and also protect the code as well?
Code that is freely available doesn't need protection as nothing can
happen to it other then someone else using and improving it which is a
good thing regardless of what else happens to that copy subsequently.
Long ago it might not have been completely predictable that many end
points of the longest-developed paths of unix development
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Unix_history-simple.svg) would be
open-sourced but it was never out of the question either. Having that
big chunk isolated by the GPL and unable to share components is just bad
for everyone.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
