On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 12:33:40PM +0100, Gerardo Ballabio wrote: > Replying only to a specific point: > > Pierre-Elliot Bécue wrote: > > the way > > some FOSS licenses work don't allow for bits of the software to be > > unlicensed.
Wait: "unlicensed", by default means that nobody has a license to redistribute the work (pretty much the opposite to, say, CC0). > > Let's take GPL's example. GPL is what some external people call as > > "contaminating". Essentially, if one wants to add AI-generated > > contribution to a GPL-licensed software, then these additions must also > > be licensed under GPL, which is not possible in the U.S! Not "the additions", but the "combined work". The additions stay under whatever license they are under. > I don't get this. > As I understand, it has always been considered legitimate to combine > GPL software with more liberally licensed software (e.g., BSD) and > release the combination under the GPL. Exactly. > Thus, the more liberally > licensed part [...] Can we stop calling that "more liberal"? MIT et al give more rights to the distributor, but allow them to take rights away from the user, so "liberal" here has clearly a slant in favour of the distributor. [agree with the rest] Cheers -- t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
