NPO

[Derek A. Neighbors]

> 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