Re: Netatalk and OpenSSL licencing
[Yeah, this is a stale thread -- I'm catching up, but it will
probably be days before I'm completely caught up. But no
one seems to have addressed this point.]
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:22:45PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> The LGPL also has problems: it effectively prohibits use of code on
> proprietary architectures, such as (AFAIK) SymbianOS and most gaming
> consoles (eg. Xbox). I think the FSF wouldn't consider that a problem,
> but it leads to the same reimplementation waste that the GPL does.
This isn't a fair statement.
All licenses have "reimplementation waste" issues, in some form or
another. Copyright law guarantees this.
With the GPL, you have "reimplementation waste" when you try to
combine *someone else's* GPLed code with code which is licensed more
restrictively. [Copyright holders can re-release under a new license,
of course.]
But you'd have even worse problems trying to incorporate [for example]
Apple's proprietary code that they've built on BSD.
BSD-like licenses "prevent GPL reimplementation waste" by allowing their
code to be combined with code under other licenses which themselves cause
reimplementation waste. If you're looking at this narrowly enough, this
"solves the problem". But someone still has to reimplement the stuff
which is under those other licenses, sooner or later. Either that, or
eventually you stop having a free system [with all the reimplementation
waste that implies].
--
Raul
Reply to: