Dalibor Topic wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir <at> pobox.com> writes:
Classically, licensors seem to just make a statement about it.
Yup, authors should know best what terms apply to their works. Practically
speaking, if they went with the GPL, Sun could just say "it's not 'viral' for
all the practical purposes" and that would be the quick end of any scary
problem, I guess.
For
example, see the Hibernate clarification to the LGPL, or how MySQL just
basically told the FSF that the GPL *is* compatible with the Apache License.
Judging from the FOSS exception license text[1], what MySQL did was to simply
add an exception to the GPL, that permits software under a set of open source
licenses to create derivative works. I believe that's what you meant, right?
That wasn't my read - I read it that you can now combine software from
MySQL that is under the GPL with software under the Apache License (for
example), which is something that the FSF has explicitly prohibited.
geir
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1] http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/foss-exception.html ... it has
the familiar "As a special exception to the terms and conditions of version 2.0
of the GPL" ring.
