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