| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Red Hat's directory server
Red Hat's directory server
Posted Jun 2, 2005 14:18 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Red Hat's directory server by davecb
Parent article: Red Hat's directory server
Not at all. "GPL+something" (where somethins is additional relaxation, not additional constraint) can be considered "plain GPL" as far as free software is concerned. Thus it does not add to "license mess". In fact I think it's preferred way to license stuff: you can easily add precise relaxation on "as needed" base (it's Ok to link with PHP/Zend-licensed software, it's Ok to use if you are only using this or that API, etc) yet for free software crown who does not like to read fine details it's just GPL, nothing more.
(Log in to post comments)
Red Hat's directory server
Posted Jun 2, 2005 21:30 UTC (Thu) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link]
"GPL+something" (where somethins is additional relaxation, not additional constraint) can be considered "plain GPL" as far as free software is concerned.
Not so sure about that. By relaxing this constraint you are achieving the goal of freedom of use. By allowing linking with unfree software you are hurting the goal of making everything else free because you are making it easier to maintain proprietary modules.
Red Hat's directory server
Posted Jun 9, 2005 9:52 UTC (Thu) by ringerc (guest, #3071) [Link]
While I can see where you're coming from, I think there are a few other important points there:(a) GPL with exceptions is still way better than proprietary. It's still free. AFAIK you can also take it and "pure-GPL" it if you feel the need.
(b) The modules don't have to be non-free, and the exception doesn't have to permit non-free modules. It can simply be for modules that, for some reason, must have additional restrictions. A good example is MySQL, which offers exceptions for PHP and (AFAIK) OpenSSL.
Obvious licensing
Posted Jun 6, 2005 6:33 UTC (Mon) by frazier (subscriber, #3060) [Link]
Provided the example provided is correct (that the software is actually GPL + fewer restrictions), the obvious question is:Why not release as GPL and an additional extended rights license? That would make things more compatible and understandable to everyone.