Am 21. Apr, 2001 schwäzte Derek A. Neighbors so:

> If you look at something like SourceForge you will 
> like 90%+ of the software there is free software. 
> I would venture to say if you are running 
> GNU\Linux probably 85%+ if not more of the 
> software you are running is under a free license.

I try to avoid things that aren't Free Software and prefer GPLd stuff.

> I think the mis understanding is that you believe 
> the GPL is the ONLY free license and this is NOT 

True, there are other Free Software licenses. The way I see it, the issue
isn't really whether or not the licenses are free, but rather if they're
compatable.

For instance ldd on apache reveals it links to /usr/lib/libgdbm.so.1 from
the libgdbm library. The copyright file in /usr/share/doc/libgdbmg1/ shows
that the package is GPLd, not LGPLd, e.g. what libc6 is using.

Since the apache license and the GPL are, from the GPLs standpoint,
incompatable, doesn't that preclude apache linking against the libgdbmg
library even though they're both Free Software?

I would prefer the GPL be as understandable as the Open Source Definition
and that everyone use it :).

> the case.  This is part of the problem with 
> terming things Open Source.  Many licenses that 
> are free are now considered 'open source' licenses 
> when in reality they are really free.  I will 

They are both. Open Source seems to include Free Software, but also allows
some things that Free Software doesn't. It's the resultant interactivity
that's a pain. I believe that's where the issue with KDE, e.g. QPL, was.

> admit FSF has done been bad about this by 
> lambasting not acceptably free licenses that the 
> OSI has approved and thus created a divide.

The OSI pages say they're a mareketing initiative. They've done better
marketing than the FSF.

> There are parts of the GPL that are 'vague'.  Like 
> what constitutes distribution (which would be the 
> problem in your example above) (ie did the 
> consultant write something this distribute it to 
> the company or was he an extension of the company)
> 
> There are also issues similar when it comes down 
> to defining 'linking'.  (ex: if i write an CORBA 
> enabled app can prop apps connect to it via CORBA 
> and use it?  currently common answer is yes, but 
> some people dont like that)
> 
> The GNU GPL v3 will address both of these concerns.

How is it addressing them? Is it locking them down or allowing for
interoperability?

ciao,

der.hans
-- 
# der.hans@LuftHans.com home.pages.de/~lufthans/ www.Aligo.com
#  A t-shirt a day keeps the noose (tie) away. - der.hans