Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

[Les Mikesell]

max bianco wrote:

> >>  You write a library and distribute it under an open-source license.  I
>>  write a library and distribute it under a slightly different--but
>>  incompatible--open-source license.  Les writes a program that links to
>>  both libraries.  If your license can impose conditions on Les's
>>  distribution of his program, then users who would get value from Les's
>>  program are SOL.  Note that nothing here violates the spirit of OSS.
>>  Everyone involved wants to be generous.  Nobody is trying to unfairly
>>  benefit from anyone else's work.  But due to a technicality, nobody can
>>  benefit from Les's work at all!  That seems like a shame, doesn't it?
>>
> 
> Yes it does but what then is the answer?Everybody argues that A is
> right or B is wrong or c....you get the idea. What is the solution?

One solution is to dual-license as much as possible with a 
less-restrictive license as a valid option.  Larry Wall is brilliant and 
recognized this ages ago when he applied the GPL to perl but also kept 
his original and freer artistic license so the code could still be 
usable in all situations.  Otherwise there would be issues with using 
either gpl'd code like readline or something like a non-gpl'd database 
server.

Another is to design standardized interfaces that can be used across GPL 
and non-GPL libraries to eliminate the possible argument that something 
that calls that library is a derivative of the GPL-covered version - and 
keep those interfaces stable so if you do have to obtain licensed 
versions of patented functions you don't have to replace them every time 
the library or calling application is updated.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com