[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]pnetlib and the VRS, SEE and other server concepts

From: David Sugar
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]pnetlib and the VRS, SEE and other server concepts
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 16:40:06 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204

I had this discussion with Richard awhile back. By implication, a GPL "convertable" free software license is by definition compatible. Essentially, a free software license, to be GPL compatible, simply must not assert any additional restrictions. The original BSD license, with the advertising clause, is not considered a GPL compatible license because the advertising clause imposes an additional condition. As a practical matter, I much prefer using the GPL, but certainly there are other ideas about how free software licensing should be done.

Sometimes people will choose to do a disjunctive license, like perl does, so that it can be used either with GPL code or optionally in a manner consistent with some other goal(s) the author has chosen. I personally think the most important goal is to preserve the freedom offered in Free Software for others, and that the GPL is the best vehicle to do this, although I would certainly consider and recommend contributing to other freely licensed packages if they fit some niche we do not already have a GPL'd package in (XFree86 is a good example of this, and it could be argued that so is Apache).


Gopal.V wrote:

If memory serves me right, Jonathan P Springer wrote:

the BSD license, which AFAIK, has been labelled "incompatible" with GPL.
(Don't ask me why -- the last time I tried to explain on a different
list, a large flame war resulted.)

Don't worry this list a bit more enlightened about GPL. AFAIK, BSD license is a "convertible" license -- not "compatible" because it is not copyleft.
I'll refrain from designing this blind; I just wanted to be sure these
facts were generally available (or refuted).

        The packet signing idea of PKI is better -- ie PGP style.
But SSL is for encryption right ?. We need both !. Use SSL
when we have support at the other end. But use PKI everywhere !.
The client can chose to ignore/handle it depending on the security

<xmlpacket signature="....">

        Also we need to consider that we may switch to jabber later.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]