For Approval: GPLv3
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Fri Aug 10 10:58:31 UTC 2007
Nils Labugt wrote:
> 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.
> "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."
Yes, GPL has strong copyleft; this is a deliberate sacrifice of
downstream compatibility. Unlike MPL, GPL is designed so you can't e.g.
factor out new but closely related functions into a different file. If
the combination legally forms a derivative work of the GPL part, the
whole thing must be licensed under the GPL.
But this has always been part of the GPL, and didn't stop GPLv2 from
getting approved or becoming the most popular license.
More information about the License-discuss