> That's not true. > > These are the old GPLv2 'aggregation' / 'system > libraries' argument > held against Nexenta by some. Groundless even > according to Eben > Moglen, the FSF chief counsel. The v3 draft has > modifications to > explicitely make these 'issues' in v2 clear to all.
This is what I am referring to, among other things: "7. License Compatibility. When you release a work based on the Program, you may include your own terms covering added parts for which you have, or can give, appropriate copyright permission, as long as those terms clearly permit all the activities that this License permits, or permit usage or relicensing under this License. Your terms may be written separately or may be this License plus additional written permission. [B]If you so license your own added parts, those parts may be used separately under your terms, but the entire work remains under this License[/B]." Taken directly from: http://gplv3.fsf.org/draft And that is just one of the things I find to be insane / unreasonable / fascist with the license. There are many more parts which made my jaw drop. How could anybody accept or license their work under this license? Why would they ever want to submit their work to such fascist terms? I could think of a number of licenses far better than the GPL. CDDL is one such case. BSD license, another. Why is CDDL suddenly no good any more? Why? This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
