NPO

> 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.

I think that compatiability is the BIGGEST issue
right now.

> 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 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.

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

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. :)

The python thing is classic example of this as python
is great to embed into other programs.


> 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.

Yes this can be the problem I speak of though. If
Open Source was just a friendly name for Free
Software (which was the original intent) this
would be fine, but it has been tainted by several
approvals of really poor licenses and now using
the label 'Open Source' can be misleading.

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

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

> 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.

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.

Derek Neighbors
derek@gnu.org