Re: Intent to package moxa radius

[Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com>]

Rev. Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@earthlink.net> wrote:
> be GPL.  An example of this is ncftp which was using it--that's a nono,
> even though it is a simple shared library.  In this instance, the GPL
> actually hurt ncftp.
...
> This is a limitation on the GPL I think, ...

It's a limitation of ncftp.

There's nothing preventing:

(a) The authors of ncftp releasing it under terms compatible with
GPL.  [This course of action has been taken by authors of other
pieces of software.]

(b) The authors of ncftp writing a workalike for readline.  [This
course of action has also been taken by a few authors of other
pieces of software.]

Now, if there is something about this situation that hurts the
functionality of readline, that would be a limitation of the GPL.
Whether this would be good or bad in some larger sense would be subject
for the gnu advocacy mailing list.

[Aside: I notice that a few people tend to be a lot more upset about the
terms of the GPL -- despite it having proved its worth many times --
than about the terms of licenses which wind up being fairly useless for
our purposes. I don't really understand why this is.]

-- 
Raul


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org