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:
pgp9WSjCe5KrL.pgp
Description: PGP signature