* Andreas Ericsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-10 15:48]: > Holger Weiss wrote: > > * Thomas Guyot-Sionnest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-10 06:16]: > >> Incompatibilities among GPL license are only brought by "GPLvX-only" > >> type of licenses. Programs and libraries using "GPLvX or higher" will > >> always avoid compatibility problems among GPL licenses. > > > > Which is why I prefer the latter over the former, but not all people do > > it this way. See the Linux kernel's license, for example. > > It isn't really an issue for the kernel though, as it's never loaded as > a library.
The issue is using kernel code directly in other projects. If this weren't an issue there'd be no point in using an Open Source license for non-library-code. > >> GPL is meant to be incompatible with other licenses. If you're worried > >> about that you should use the BSD license > > > > Yes, I personally do :-) > > BSD license has other issues. If there had ever been a perfect one, the > need for a billion different ones wouldn't be needed. *shrug*, I don't see the "issues", I guess the main reason the variants emerged was to keep the lawyers of various institutions busy. Well, an issue I do see is with Berkeley's original 4-clause license, which isn't compatible with the GPL, but I don't use that. > >> but keep in mind that OSS wouldn't be nearly as strong as it is with > >> BSD. Many companies contributing to OSS would just rip the code if it > >> was under the BSD license. > > > > That's the idea of the GPL and in some cases it definitely worked, but I > > doubt this effect is really that strong in practice. My guess would be > > that most companies which don't want to (or cannot) contribute their > > code to OSS won't be forced by the GPL to do so, they simply won't use > > GPL code. > > Or they'll use GPL code and have in-house modifications that are never > made public, which is exactly what they would have done had it been BSD- > or MIT-licensed instead. Yup. > For the plugins it won't matter in the slightest which version is used, > as it isn't a library and so other programs will never have to think > about it. It doesn't matter for the plugins, but authors which like to use plugin code in their projects would have to think about it. I guess it's just me, but I've been bitten by license incompatibility issues more than once, so I'm a bit annoyed of these. However, I fully agree it's no big deal for the plugin's project. I should've kept silent :-) Holger ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ Nagios-users mailing list Nagios-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nagios-users ::: Please include Nagios version, plugin version (-v) and OS when reporting any issue. ::: Messages without supporting info will risk being sent to /dev/null