Re: Corel's apt frontend
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Kernel is GPL. Everything is a derivative of the kernel under your
> interpretation. You can argue that Linus has allowed people to abuse the
> GPL of the kernel so it's okay, however I think this would cause the GPL
> to contaminate any distribution which contains any GPL software. If that
> doesn't cross the DFSG line, it comes very damned close to doing it.
> If RMS intends this sort of contamination (I don't believe he's even
> considered the issue fully) then we CANNOT ship things like Apache with
> Debian unless we get permission from Linus and the other kernel Copyright
> holders to do so, in writing (or at least in email with modified license
> terms to be applied to the next release of the kernel)
Or you can simply decide to disagree with Stallman on his interpretation
of the GPL itself. "The same address space" - talk about ambiguity.
I have a feeling should Stallman decide that the GPL was this
far-reaching, he'd soon have to defend that interpretation in court, a
forum the GPL has never been tested in before (under any interpretation).
I predict it would also cause a commercial stampede towards FreeBSD. =)
I would expect a similar reaction should Stallman change the GPL in GPLv3
to apply to any interface to a GPL'd program (the "loophole" Bruce wants
> Should this interpretation of the GPL become dominant I believe we should
> deprecate the GPL in favor of a license which does not skirt the letter of
> the DFSG while violating its spirit in favor of some license which
> doesn't. (Which would suck because I don't know of any other suitable
> licenses that do anything like what the GPL does..)
Thoughts on the MPL? I find it a more than adequate compromise between
the GPL's viral nature and BSD's optimal-reuse strategy.
Collab.Net is hiring! http://www.collab.net/