 |
 |
Somewhat on topic - I thought this might be relevant - The most recent episode of the Free as in Freedom Podcast/Oggcast is entirely about Copyleft and the basics of compatibility. You can check out the episode here: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast/2011/feb/15/free-freedom-episode-0x09-copyleft-or-later-and-ba/ cheers! -nruest On 11-02-17 02:48 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > On 2/17/2011 12:50 PM, Eric Hellman wrote: >> If list members would like to "name and shame" GPL incompatible >> interfaces that they're stuck working with, have at it. If I'm >> mistaken and there are none left, then I'd like to know it. > > Well, the problem with "viral" licenses like GPL is that other > licenses are essentially incompatible with them _unless_ they are open > source -- at least if you want to share the product of your > combination of those two libraries. > > You can't combine non-open-source code and GPL code in a single project. > > Personally, I much prefer "non-viral" type open source licenses like > Apache or MIT for this reason. The GPL advocates argue that viral-type > licenses like GPL are "more free" because nobody can take GPL code and > turn it into a proprietary product. I see what they're trying to do. > But from my perspective 'non-viral' open source licenses like Apache > are 'more free' because it gives the user the freedom to combine > Apache code with non-open-source code in a project. You can't do that > with GPL, which seems less free to me. > > Jonathan