Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 18, 2008, Matthew Saltzman <mjs(a)clemson.edu> wrote:
> Then can we at least agree that there are sometimes unfortunate
> consequences to the GPL's failure to permit one to share a work
> combining two pieces of *free* software because of relatively minor[1]
> license incompatibilities?
Yeah, it's unfortunate when this happens.
Definitely. It's something that GPL V3 has tried hard to fix,
wherever possible.
However, I must point out that in some cases post-GPL licences
have *deliberately* been worded in a way that makes them incompatible
with GPL code. Whatever the consequences, it's not appropriate to
blame the GPL for those.
> In fact, I think it's arguable that there are sometimes
unfortunate
> consequences to the GPL's failure to permit one to share a work that
> makes use of a GPL library and a proprietary library.
Sparing a user from becoming dependent on a piece of proprietary
software might even be a sacrifice for the user, but it's actually an
advantage for the user and for society in the long run.
Perhaps.
I think we have to think about, for example, gcc ports. The fact that
people who do ports of gcc are forced to ship the source for their
changes has made a lot of free code available that wouldn't have been
if they had been permitted to link proprietary code into gcc.
Andrew.