On Wednesday March 21 2001 05:19 am, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > Why is it always the non-GPL license that must conform? Why is the GPL > > never criticized for being incompatible? > > Er, actually, it sounds like he's considering substantive changes in > GPLv3, or at least "clarifications" for the pragmatic purpose of > explaining or reconciling compatibility issues, so long as it doesn't > change his core beliefs about what constitutes "free". That's good to hear. The process of devising the GPLv3 is a mystery to myself and most others, so it's nice to know that he's thinking about how it will interact with other free licenses. -- David Johnson ___________________ http://www.usermode.org
- Apache vs. BSD licenses Ian Stokes-Rees
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses Rodent of Unusual Size
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses Ian Stokes-Rees
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses Rodent of Unusual Size
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses John Cowan
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses Brian Behlendorf
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses phil hunt
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses David Johnson
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses Brian Behlendorf
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses kmself
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses David Johnson
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses David Johnson
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses kmself
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses David Johnson
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses kmself
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses David Johnson
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses kmself
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses phil hunt
- RE: Apache vs. BSD licenses Dave J Woolley