Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> somebody wrote:
> >>> Don't assume. You want to release code mixed with GPL code,
> >
> >> No, I don't! That's exactly what the article is talking about!
> >
> > Doesn't matter, software that functions together is a block. Think of it
> > this way: Would GM allow a car dealership to put in, say, Toyota parts into
> > their cars and sell it as a whole? After all, Toyota is building their parts
> > from the ground up, not using any GM parts. In other words, packaging makes
> > a difference. If a piece of software depends on another to function as a
> > package, demanding that the licenses be compatible makes sense to me.
>
>  Perfect! Now you finally get it!
>
>  You're invoking an analogy using a *closed* model and realizing that
> what the gcc folks are doing is the same - all the while being GPL.

GPL was always a closed model of freedom.  Like someone previous analogy of it
being a country where you can spend your money in any way you like, as long as
it's spent *in* the country, not on foreign stuff.  It's the GPL playground,
where kids don't harm themselves as long as they're inside...

No one has ever stated otherwise and in any case, this closed model of freedom
is what, IMO, guarantees the continued evolution of GPL'd software at a faster
pace than leecher-friendly "more free" models.

Post a reply to this message