On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 21:16 -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote: > On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 16:09 -0700, Craig White wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 17:12 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > > > There is such a fundamental problem in general, in that the GPL > > > restrictions prevent many useful combinations of things from being > > > distributed even when all parties would like to give them away. However > > > in this case the specific problem is the lack of a stable and specified > > > interface so a device driver can independently provide services for the > > > kernel without either being considered a derivative or needing to > > > revised every time the kernel is rebuilt. > > ---- > > not really a problem for software where the source is available and much > > more of a problem for software that is distributed as binary only. > > Oh, but it *is* a problem, even for open source. I work on a project > licensed under the CPL. That's open source too, but I can't distribute > prebuilt binaries of versions that link with GPL utility routines such > as getline(). > > You might suggest that I choose a different license, but it's not up to > me. > > The really silly thing is, even the FSF doesn't think there's a major > philosophical difference. The CPL has some restrictions regarding > patent licensing that the GPL doesn't. The FSF description of the > incompatibility states that they don't think those restrictions are a > bad idea, but the do induce incompatibility. ---- silly thing? surely not to those who have chosen this CPL license (and I'm not familiar with it). there is obviously intent by the developers when they choose a particular license. Then of course, there are stories such as this which are clearly upsetting... http://ask.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?id=270361&op=view I think that the objectives for the GPL license and well known and have been for quite some time. Craig
