On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 14:55, Sean wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:36:02 -0500 > Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Oh, then you don't understand the GPL. You can't share > > anything unless the 'work as a whole' meets GPL terms. > > No, you don't understand it. If you're trying to distribute > some 'work as a whole' that includes _other peoples GPL code_ > then you're trying to distribute something you don't have a right > to distribute unless you abide by the very liberal GPL license. > You can't distribute a copy of MS Office without a proper agreement > with MS either. Nobody but you is arguing about *what* the GPL says. We only say that in some specific cases, quite reasonable uses are forbidden by the GPL. And that's a pity. The GPL doesn't differentiate between other code using GPL code and GPL code using other code. While the former seems quite wrong, the latter seems not so bad in some cases. By way of illustration, whats the difference between: 1. GPL code using MIT code, and 2. MIT code using GPL code? The answer is that (1) can be done by relicensing the MIT code and (2) can't be done. So which license is preventing integration here? We all know that we are free to not use GPL code if that's what we want. You can stop repeating it. Many developers have opted for just that. But claiming that it was the restrictions of the MIT license that prevented it all from working is the kind of doublethink that would make Stallman proud.
