Simo Sorce wrote:
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,
Can you define copyleft? I don't think that term helps clear up any
misunderstandings.
> cannot be compatible with just any
license, but only with licenses that follow certain rules, for obvious
reasons.
Those reasons are not at all obvious. There is never any need to
restrict combinations of works.
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.
When the GPL is the only one placing requirements on the other
components it is not a two sided story.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
