On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 14:40 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > 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. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/ > > 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. You cannot allow combination with licenses that have provisions that conflict with your license, otherwise such provisions would become useless, it's that simple. > > 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. Can you provide an example of an incompatible license where the incompatibility lies only within the GPL itself ? 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
