Simo Sorce wrote:
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/
Not much there about prohibiting combinations with other licenses.
> 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.
I guess that depends on your concept of 'useless'. If the point is to
prevent better works from being available as a result of such
combinations, then I guess I'd agree, but I don't see why anyone wants
that. The politics discussed here
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html sort of leans that way
but I think it is wrong.
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 ?
I can't think of any other license where the incompatibility would not
be only within the GPL, at least in every case where the components can
be distributed separately. No other license that I know of has a 'work
as a whole' clause to restrict a library from being linked with a main
program or other libraries that are under different terms.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
