Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 01:12:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/20/06, Glenn Maynard <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I still don't understand how either of these (whether Qmail or TeX) could
> > have been considered so critical that it justified sacrificing code reuse,
> > allowing licenses to effectively prohibit it. People say "trust me, we
> > thought about this", but I have yet to hear the resulting rationale, if
> > there ever really was any.
> Code re-use (in the sense of using the code outside the package
> in question) wasn't one of the priorities.
> If it had been, we'd have required everything be compatible with
> the GPL.
Not any code can reuse any other code, but patch clauses mean code can't
even be reused in code with the *same license*, prohibiting it entirely.
I hope you're wrong and that "code reuse is unimportant and can be
prohibited" wasn't really the rationale.