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

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:14:03PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Have you heard argument three?
> "A new license incompatible with all other free software licenses practically 
> prohibits code reuse in the same way.  This sucks, but we consider it Free 
> (while discouraging it).  Patch clauses suck in the exact same way, so we 
> should consider them Free too (while discouraging them)."

The difference is that such a license is at least compatible with itself: if
you put your software under the same license, or something almost guaranteed 
to be compatible (eg. public domain), you can reuse the code.  Patch clauses
aren't even "compatible" with themselves: putting your work under the same
license doesn't fix it.

Also, a license incompatible with other licenses wouldn't cause problems like
"can't put the code in CVS".  I have trouble viewing any software under a
license that prohibits the use of ordinary source control as a valuable
contribution to free software.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: