> Sure, there is one, and that's exactly it. The LGPL is > one example of a > license that protects the code while permitting the > creation of derived > works with mixed components. The CPL is another. There > are several > more listed at opensource.org. The MySQL open-source > exception to the > GPL is another workable alternative (at least for the case > where all > components are free[1]). Excellent, OpenOffice is released under the LGPL, with the L becoming Lesser GPL, which does not restrict the sharing of code. Can Linux be released under the LGPL? at least to allow the the mixing and sharing of code that is restricted by the real GPL. > If only we had control of all the pieces and could specify > the > licenses... > > When we try to take free software components from other > sources with > different (even free!) licenses and combine them to create > new free > works, we are often stymied by the failure of the GPL to > permit the > distribution of the result. And it is not always possible > (and almost > never easy) to resolve the conflicts. > > [1] I think it also could be useful to be able to combine > free and > proprietary software to create new works. > > -- > http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs I agree with [1] here. I believe Les agrees with you here as well :) Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
