On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:04:35PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > Outside of the "derivative work" GPL clause they don't quite look > compatible to me as a non-lawyer (eg the definition of "source code" > looks to differ on scripts etc).
The clause that permits derived works to be licensed under the GPL is all that's needed for GPL compatibility (in the sense that combined works of GPL-licensed and copyleft-next-licensed code can be licensed under the GPL without imposition of any additional restrictions on downstream recipients). Richard
