On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:14:03PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Have you heard argument three? > "A new license incompatible with all other free software licenses practically > prohibits code reuse in the same way. This sucks, but we consider it Free > (while discouraging it). Patch clauses suck in the exact same way, so we > should consider them Free too (while discouraging them)."
The difference is that such a license is at least compatible with itself: if you put your software under the same license, or something almost guaranteed to be compatible (eg. public domain), you can reuse the code. Patch clauses aren't even "compatible" with themselves: putting your work under the same license doesn't fix it. Also, a license incompatible with other licenses wouldn't cause problems like "can't put the code in CVS". I have trouble viewing any software under a license that prohibits the use of ordinary source control as a valuable contribution to free software. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
