On Oct 12, 4:45 pm, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > mike3 writes: > > I've never really been able to understand this exactly. Why wasn't the > > license made so that it would only require you release the _GPL-covered > > parts_ under GPL and distribute them in such a way that they remain free > > -- why does it take releasing the original parts of the package TOO in > > order to keep the GPL stuff free? > > The point is to increase the amount of Free Software. Otherwise you might > just as well use the BSD license.
That's what I've thought, but why doesn't the FAQ mention that? It makes it seem like somehow that in order for the GPL parts of your combined work to still be Free, the original stuff you made must also be GPL as well, even though the point of *that*, *specifically* is not to simply keep the GPL stuff Free but to actually *increase* the amount of Free software in existence. > -- > John Hasler > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Dancing Horse Hill > Elmwood, WI USA _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
