On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 12:39 -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote: > The GPL is not the only license that protects code released under it > from incorporation into proprietary products. But some clauses in the > GPL prevent interoperability with other software that (for whatever > reason) was released under different licenses that even the FSF > acknowledges are in the spirit of freedom and open source. That's too > bad for free and open-source software. Copyleft licenses are by nature incompatible with a number of other licenses, and it's not because they are 'veil', a brief thinking about the reasons for strong copyleft will make it evident why some licenses are incompatible with others. Companies that are 'scared' by whatever license should just change lawyers/managers, they clearly do not understand the world they are supposed to operate *. Companies that strategically choose to not release software under specific free software license just make choices. You have to ask their managers. not their lawyers, why they made the choice. Simo. * I have personally met lawyers so used to proprietary licenses they simply did *not* understand the GPL and other free software license. Once they stop trying to read only the legalese and start first understanding the philosophy beyond a Free Software License, they usually come to term with these licenses. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
