3 ms·

This is a common misconception but in fact the incompatibility is purely accidental, in addition I wouldn’t call GNU/GPL the most pragmatic license family eithe

This is a common misconception but in fact the incompatibility is purely accidental, in addition I wouldn’t call GNU/GPL the most pragmatic license family either.

yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
If it was an accident, then why does the CDDL even exist? What does it offer that MIT/BSD don't have, other than being incompatible with GPL?
- hultner 8y ago
  This argument could be made for any license that’s similar to another, I don’t think it’s fair reasoning. Why does 2-Clause BSD exist? Why does Apache license exist?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
    That's a good point, though honestly I never could understand why you would use anything but Apache (for permissive) or (A)GPL (for copyleft). Other options seem like oversights (BSD/MIT don't cover patents) or cutting off your nose to spite your face (WTFPL). I'm sure there's nuance, but I can't seem to see it.
    - nine_k 8y ago
      MIT license and BSD license seem to long predate Apache. GPL and AGPL differ vastly in a few important aspects that make GPL pretty OK for commercial companies, and AGPL an absolute no-no.
- AndrewSnow 8y ago
  Like Mozilla, per-file copyleft and clearer patent licensing, IIRC. Some prominent former Sun folks have publicly claimed the GPL incompatibility was intentional, other equally prominent folks have disagreed.