3 ms·
I love FOSS. But realistically speaking, the more complex a license is the more expensive it is to get sound legal advice on it. I understand what the stipulat
by mustpax 18y ago
I love FOSS. But realistically speaking, the more complex a license is the more expensive it is to get sound legal advice on it.
I understand what the stipulations are supposed to mean: don't link with GPL unless you're going to release the source. But the legal language has a life of its own and it gets the final word. With all the stipulations around linking and compilation, there's got to be a lot of corner cases to consider and defend against, not an easy feat.
Granted FSF are not the most litigious guys around, but that doesn't make the license any less legally burdensome.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- davidw 18y agoOk, but 99.9% of people just use GCC to compile stuff. They don't care about linking to it, fiddling with intermediate representations, or anything like that. And the licensing is not "complex and burdensome" for people who just want to compile stuff. Indeed, it's far less "complex and burdensome" than, say, Microsoft's compiler, which is also used by a large number of people.