Rev. Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > be GPL. An example of this is ncftp which was using it--that's a nono, > even though it is a simple shared library. In this instance, the GPL > actually hurt ncftp. ... > This is a limitation on the GPL I think, ...
It's a limitation of ncftp. There's nothing preventing: (a) The authors of ncftp releasing it under terms compatible with GPL. [This course of action has been taken by authors of other pieces of software.] (b) The authors of ncftp writing a workalike for readline. [This course of action has also been taken by a few authors of other pieces of software.] Now, if there is something about this situation that hurts the functionality of readline, that would be a limitation of the GPL. Whether this would be good or bad in some larger sense would be subject for the gnu advocacy mailing list. [Aside: I notice that a few people tend to be a lot more upset about the terms of the GPL -- despite it having proved its worth many times -- than about the terms of licenses which wind up being fairly useless for our purposes. I don't really understand why this is.] -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]