-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Karen Hill wrote:
> Remember the Freedom License _is_ GPL compatible
No. No two ways about it, it's not GPL compatible. Saying so won't
make it so.
> because it allows you to release it under the GPL to do what ever you
> wish, but if you own the copyright to the software, it will also be
> released dually under the Freedom License.
If I incorporate code licensed under your crap license in my GPL
software, I would not be able to redistribute without imposing an
additional restriction on the receiver, which is that it must be dual
licensed with your crap license. In essence you're sucking GPL code
into the crap license world, which closed source corporations can leech
off with no payment. Of course the GPL does not allow that, so I can't
include crap license code and redistribute in the first place. It isn't
GPL compatible (and entirely irrelevant for that very reason).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEc4dLd1ZThqotgfgRAqmSAJ4/UYtFiJ8NgVIKVRUoLeXANz4ygQCglYhx
1Zstg5z0eb4R0McicF4ec2c=
=/Ct5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
stab_val(stab)->str_nok = 1; /* what a wonderful hack! */
-- Larry Wall in stab.c from the perl source code
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
