Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

[Simo Sorce]

On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 14:40 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Simo Sorce wrote:
> > 
> > Sorry but this comment is either grossly imprecise and dictated by hurry
> > in writing up[, or it underlines a gross misunderstanding of the GPL. In
> > either case, as it is just false.
> > 
> > First, a copyleft license by nature,
> 
> Can you define copyleft? I don't think that term helps clear up any 
> misunderstandings.

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/

>  > cannot be compatible with just any
> > license, but only with licenses that follow certain rules, for obvious
> > reasons. 
> 
> Those reasons are not at all obvious. There is never any need to 
> restrict combinations of works.

You cannot allow combination with licenses that have provisions that
conflict with your license, otherwise such provisions would become
useless, it's that simple.

> > Being GPL compatible is not difficult at all, in most cases modern
> > licenses that are not GPL (at least v3) compatible, are not by choice,
> > so you should really look at both sides of the equation, you cannot
> > blame the GPL for lack of compatibility, compatibility is always a two
> > sides story.
> 
> When the GPL is the only one placing requirements on the other 
> components it is not a two sided story.

Can you provide an example of an incompatible license where the
incompatibility lies only within the GPL itself ?

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York