Branden Robinson wrote: > Hmmm. I'm not sure blanket acceptance of "closed-universe" projects is > really a good idea. I'm not sure it serves our users very well, and I'm > pretty confident it doesn't serve the Free Software community very well. > > At the same time, I'm struggling to determine an essential distinction > between a single de-facto closed-universe project, and a vast collection of > such projects (which all works licensed under the GNU GPL could be said to > be). Parts of works under the GNU GPL (or other compatible licenses) can be incorporated into other projects under the GNU GPL (or other compatible licenses). I don't think this makes it a "closed-universe project", although perhaps the entire collection of such projects could be considered a "closed universe". Parts of works under a patch clause license cannot be easily incorporated into other projects (regardless of those other projects' licenses), unless the entirety of the other project is considered to be a patch on the part of the patch-clause-licensed work. This becomes even more difficult when incorporating material from more than one such work. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature