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

> I think that compatiability is the BIGGEST issue 
> right now.

I think it's been the biggest issue for a long time. I also see it as
compatability/interoperability in the generic sense, not just in
licensing. Licensing is just one way that two things might not be
compatable. We have enough probs with compatability outside our community,
it's a bad thing to build it up inside our community as well.

> > 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?
> 
> If you believe there has been a violation please 
> notify the maintainer of libgdbmg as well as rms.

I don't even know what it is. I just ran ldd against python, saw it links
against libc6, which is LGPLd, and then looked at apache because it also
has an incompatable to the GPL Free Software licence. I was just digging
for examples due to the compatabilities issue we were talking about.

One of the cool things about the GPL is that it's the only real Linux
virus ;-). At the same time, it seems foolish to get into a licensing war
with the apache group.

The licenses page at GNU says there's no reason not to run programs
released under non-compatable to the GPL, yet Free, software licenses. It
would be nice to see specifically why they're not GPL compatable.

> I have been meaning to write an essay on this, 
> something to the effect of "What ever happened to 
> sharing?"  If you read the original GNU 
> Manifesto's that was one of Richards main goals.

I am interested in seeing it :).

> With the plethora of licenses that emerge nearly 
> daily all being incompatiable, I often wonder if 
> its even worth it.

It might help that plethora slow down :).

> So when we call RMS a zealot for going after 
> licenses that are not GPL compatiable we should 
> remember he is really trying to help them share 
> (as there is more GPL free software than any other 
> free software) by encouraging them to be 
> compatiable.  He is not telling them they must 
> switch to the GPL. :)

True, but since more computers use proprietary software without sharing
issues than Free Software shouldn't we just switch to Sun or m$ and get on
with our lives? :)

It would be easier to change the GPL to be compatable with the other
licenses than to get all of the other licenses fixed. That's why Qt
finally made their libraries available under GPL ( or is it LGPL? ) as
well as the QPL, e.g. to fix the incomapatabilities with KDE and other
Qt-based packages. It was easier to fix everything at one place than to
get all of the various package authors to fix their licenses.

BTW, I'm not suggesting this actually happen. Rather, I'd like to better
understand why it should or shouldn't happen.

> Yes FSF is horrible about marketing.  They are 
> getting better though.

Good :).

> > How is it addressing them? Is it locking them down or allowing for
> > interoperability?
> 
> That is the question and why a version 3 doesnt 
> exist yet. :)  As no one wants to limit 
> interoperability, but people dont want thier GPL 
> software treated like BSD software because its 
> easy to interoperate with.
> 
> So I think what you will see is verbiage that in a 
> sense prevents interoperation on some level with 
> non compatiable licenses.

I wish they'd actually side in favor of compatability, especially with
reference to Free Software licenses. The GPL is just a manifest or
codification of the Free Software ideals. According to the GNU page on
licenses the Apache licenses are also Free Software licenses. Why can't
Free Software be allowed to link against other Free Software? Why do we
have to have a license war at that level?

> The real issue is RMS in the GPL is using 
> Copyright law to combat copyright law.  In the 
> linking issue there is no real precedence for this 
> with regards to copyright so it become much harder 
> to build a solid license around it.
> 
> Eben (the FSF lawyer) probably has done a piece on 
> this.

If you find it, please give me a pointer. As much as I hate legal stuff, I
see this as an important issue for at least some of us to somewhat
understand :). I have to understand the ideological aspects behind things
for it to make any sense to me.

danke,

der.hans
-- 
# der.hans@LuftHans.com home.pages.de/~lufthans/ www.YourCompanyHere.net ;-)
#  Don't step in front of speeding cars, don't eat explosives
#  and don't use m$ LookOut :). - der.hans