Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Jan 2013 01:41 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Thread beginning with comment 548104
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: not all these changes are strictly necessary
by Soulbender on Thu 10th Jan 2013 10:00
in reply to "RE[8]: not all these changes are strictly necessary"
RE[10]: not all these changes are strictly necessary
by kwan_e on Thu 10th Jan 2013 11:26
in reply to "RE[9]: not all these changes are strictly necessary"
My point was that just as GPL is not compatible with BSD there are many licenses that are not compatible with the GPL and not accepted in the GPL camp for ideological reasons.
There isn't a movement in Linux distributions to replace standalone BSD software with standalone GPL software as there is in the BSD world to replace standalone GPL software with new ones.
I can understand getting rid of GPL libraries to prevent any accidental breach of licence, but standalone programs pose no threat. Yet the BSDs have an allergic reaction to them.





Member since:
2007-02-18
Exactly. The very OPPOSITE of ideological.