| |||||||||||||
compatibility?compatibility?Posted Jan 23, 2006 19:22 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421)Parent article: Suits and Patents: A Report from the GPLv3 Launch Conference
He spoke on the overall goal of increasing the compatibility of the GPL with other appropriate licenses (such as the MIT X11 and BSD licenses).This doesn't sound accurate. The GPL is already compatible with the X11 (X.org) license and the modified BSD license, while RMS has specifically stated that the GPL v3 is still incompatible with the original BSD advertising clause. My understanding was that the increased compatibility of GPL v3 referred to e.g. the Apache license.
(Log in to post comments)
compatibility? Posted Jan 23, 2006 21:01 UTC (Mon) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] My understanding was that the increased compatibility of GPL v3 referred to e.g. the Apache license.By which you mean the Apache 1 license, or the Apache 2 license? The two are quite different. IIRC Apache 1 is similar to the MIT/BSD licenses.
compatibility? Posted Jan 23, 2006 22:02 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] Version 2; the only previous incompatibility with Apache v2 had to do with the patent-termination clauses, and those are supposed to be addressed by GPL v3.
compatibility? Posted Jan 25, 2006 13:09 UTC (Wed) by dyork (guest, #2819) [Link] You are correct that RMS said that GPLv3 is still incompatible with the advertising clause of the original BSD. At the launch event, RMS said that he wanted to make it <i>more</I> compatible with a wide range of other free/open source licenses and specifically gave the example of the MIT and BSD licenses.
|
|||||||||||||