On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 11:20, Andy Green wrote:
> >> I didn't really understand what you meant by this.
>
> > FreeBSD is distributed, not under the GPL license. GPL
>
> Yes I am reasonably aware of the two licenses. But in the case of
> Fedora, what are the "GPL encumbrance" problems to a normal user?
Who is a 'normal user'? If you mean one who would would like
to make his own choice about paying for an enhanced product
or using only what someone is willing to provide for free,
the problems are the things that aren't permitted to
be available as a choice for you.
> The
> lack of patented codecs? Sounds like any commercial enterprise would
> have to take care in that direction GPL compatability problems or no.
A rather large number of things cannot be included as part of
something with GPL components, *even if* the person who has
them wants to give them away and the person who needs them
has the appropriate licenses or is willing to get them.
Compare, for example, what comes built into OSX with what
Linux distros can include.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
