"Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil> writes:
> --===============0423943140736445875== > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; > micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00EE_01D28833.18234540" > > ------=_NextPart_000_00EE_01D28833.18234540 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="utf-8" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Beyond that, is the FSF interested in compatibility between non-FSF licenses? > That is, if MIT and Apache 2.0 happened to be incompatible with one another, > would FSF care provided they were both compatible with the GPL? In my > opinion, OSI is supposed to be more neutral on the matters, and therefore > should care more about such situations. > I can't immediately picture the specific situation you're talking about, but in general we do care. For one thing because we recommend other licenses depending on the situation (see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html). We also do support all free software, not just GPLed or even just copyleft free software. Our licens...@fsf.org team answers questions that have to do with other licenses in both their correspondence with the community and in our compliance work. -john -- John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: A462 6CBA FF37 6039 D2D7 5544 97BA 9CE7 61A0 963B http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at <http://my.fsf.org/join>. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
