Re: QT non-free but becoming compatible to debian? (was Re: Qt license change)
Montreal Fri Nov 20 20:06:11 1998
David Welton <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 1998 at 07:16:52PM -0500, Navindra Umanee wrote:
> > I think the real shame is that the GPL is not OpenSource friendly.
> > GPL only knows of itself or other licenses that it can cannibalise
> > (so called virus effect).
> Huh? What an absurd statement. You do, of course, realize, that Linux
Hold on, why is it absurd? It's a fact that the GPL is incompatible
with many Open Source licenses. The Mozilla licenses come to mind. I
think the Artistic License (see Perl) is also incompatible with the
GPL (don't know for sure).
For this reason, for example, one of the research groups at McGill has
chosen to go with the LGPL for all of its software because it is more
friendly towards other licenses and other people's code.
> owes almost everything to the fact that it is free, and that the GPL
> makes sure that it stays free.
See FreeBSD. Linux also has its development model and Linus Torvalds
(and co) going for it. FreeBSD suffered from the AT&T lawsuit.
> Of course, this does make it a tad less free than, say, the X license.
> Too bad for those who would like to appropriate free code for
> proprietary use.
And too bad for a bunch of other OpenSource-licensed code.