Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Jul 2007 22:02 UTC
"Forget software politics for a minute - what does the new Samba licensing mean for the version you're actually running, and for the distribution that packages it for you? Samba maintainer Jeremy Allison explains."
Permalink for comment 256471
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2006-08-26
My point was that it seems rather silly to make a next generation license incompatible with existing licenses that are based on the same idea.
On the contrary, it's entirely logical, because the licenses in question are based on copyleft [1]:
---------------------------
When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is no legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a single program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses: each of them says, “If you include code under this license in a larger program, the larger program must be under this license too.” There is no way to make them compatible. [2]
---------------------------
My opinion is that it is better to be inclusive as opposed to exclusive, no matter what side you are on, no matter the subject.
Nonsense. E.g., using that logic one could argue that free software developers should surrender all of their copyrights to the public domain. That would be more inclusive of firms such as Microsoft that want total exploitation of such software.
Indeed, while inclusiveness is a fine goal, it but one of many criteria. How about true and false? Suppose I think the earth is flat, and you don't, but, for the sake of inclusiveness, you adopt my opinion. Where would that get you?
History is littered with examples of disasters in the name of inclusiveness. Inclusiveness may be good, but there are likely far more important criteria, such as, you know, the merit of an opinion.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
[2]: http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html