On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 18:38 +0000, Matthew Saltzman wrote: > > My original point was simply that interoperability of GPL software and > software released under a number of other FOSS licenses is hindered by > the GPL's prohibition^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H lack of permission to > distribute combined works. Unfortunately, an all-GPL world is a > utopian > dream; the real world is more complicated and more frustrating. 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, cannot be compatible with just any license, but only with licenses that follow certain rules, for obvious reasons. Trying to discuss this point is like trying to argue that gravity sucks and whine about it. Second, you should really differentiate between GPLv2 and GPLv3, as GPLv3 address, with many others, also the license compatibility problem, making GPLv3 more compatible with other copyleft licenses. Third and not less important the first, the GPL (v2/3) does NOT prohibit distribution of combined works as long as all pieces use GPL compatible licenses. 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. That said I am not pointing fingers at anyone, as I believe everyone have the right to choose and draft the license for their own software they way they want. Finally, please let's keep this para-legal quasi-trolling off the fedora-*DEVEL* mailing list thanks. Simo. -- 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
