Gordon Messmer wrote:
Your entire argument against the GPL seems to be based on the idea that
you repeat, that the GPL replaces the terms of components which are
included in a GPL licensed "work as a whole". This is not the case. I
strongly recommend that you read:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html
I see they recognize one of the problems the GPL causes:
"When working in a large GPL’d codebase, it is very easy to change
the work in a way that causes the GPL to cover files that, in
isolation, were previously covered only by permissive terms."
But I don't see any solution. And the total exclusion of material
covered by MPL/CDDL (i.e. free in the real sense) is unsolvable.
The first paragraph (a summary) addresses your concerns. It illustrates
two points:
1) you must comply with the included work's license, because it
continues to apply when included in a GPLed work.
Not necessarily, because it can't be included unless the GPL applies.
2) users who receive your GPLed work may extract the included work and
reuse it according to its original license, because it continues to
apply when included in a GPLed work.
But they can't comply with both licenses at once - they have to choose
one or the other. And, as your link points out, this can be problematic.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
