Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

[Les Mikesell]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>> Then can we at least agree that there are sometimes unfortunate
>> consequences to the GPL's failure to permit one to share a work
>> combining two pieces of *free* software because of relatively minor[1]
>> license incompatibilities?
> 
> Yeah, it's unfortunate when this happens.  In general, authors who use
> the GPL for its intended purpose (ensuring the 4 freedoms are
> respected for all users) won't object to the combination of their
> works with other works that respect users' freedoms, and will grant
> additional permissions for the combinations in spite of the license
> conflicts.

I don't believe that is generally true except for perl and the few other 
dual-licensed packages where the authors understood the issue from the 
start.  And worse, there is no accounting for copyright ownership since 
anyone could have added code and most packages have no one who could 
grant such permission on current packages encumbered by the GPL.

> So, yeah, it's unfortunate, but I don't think it's really such a big
> deal.  Nearly all Free Software *is* available under the GPL and
> compatible licenses anyway.

And there's where we differ.  I think it is a big deal, has put free 
software decades behind where it might otherwise be, and has kept 
affordable alternatives to monopoly-ware out of the picture almost 
completely.

> Sparing a user from becoming dependent on a piece of proprietary
> software might even be a sacrifice for the user, but it's actually an
> advantage for the user and for society in the long run.

You can't be 'dependent' on software as long as there are alternate 
choices. The thing that is bad for society is unnecessary restrictions 
on how those choices can be produced and combined.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com