For Approval: GPLv3

Nils Labugt elabu at
Fri Aug 10 10:46:27 UTC 2007

tor, 09.08.2007 kl. 23.32 -0400, skrev Matthew Flaschen:

> I think this may be too subjective as a criterion.  Anyway, my point is
> that GPL should not be singled out as anti-compatibility, which it isn't.

>From GPLv3:

"For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files
associated with source files for the work, and the source code for
shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is
specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication
or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work."

It is this type of restrictions that are the source of the compatibility
problems. The MPL cannot be converted to CDDL, or vice versa, but that
is not much of a problem since files with those licenses can be linked
together. If I license my libraries under the CDDL, then it is the GPL
that prevents those libraries from being used in GPL programs, not the
CDDL. (And those libraries might be considered independent works,
depending on the jurisdiction.)

Nils Labugt

More information about the License-discuss mailing list