[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Recently released QPL

On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 10:15:38AM -0500, Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
> > The bigger issue is then are we permitted to mix GPL and _MOST
> > ANYTHING ELSE_ at all?  Based on the email from RMS in December, no
> > we aren't.
> correct; the gpl doesn't allow itself to be mixed with any licenses of
> 'lesser blood'. i guess that would make rms feel dirty or
> something. ;)

This really (I mean _REALLY_) turns me off of ever using the GPL on
anything.  I would sooner create YAL that had the GPL's terms matched
with the exception of license compatibility than use a license I KNEW was
going to limit where others could or could not use my code for the
purposes of Free Software.  If my code is being used in Free Software, I
don't care what Free Software license they use for their code.

> > If people want to know why I consider the "GPL virus" a bad thing,
> > there is the answer.  If everything that links with the GPL _MUST
> > BE_ 100% GPL, then there are serious licensing problems with every
> > single Linux distibution if no other reason than because people have
> > in-discriminantly used BSDish code (sans advertising clause) within
> > GPL code.
> i think i've mentioned this before. it's really a problem. now even
> knightbrd sees it. ;)

It's a big problem because I see it?  =p

Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>            Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE            The Source Comes First!
The software required Win95 or better, so I installed Linux.

Attachment: pgpjtzlZ3OJzn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: