3 ms·
1. "GPL-Compatible" is not a requirement of a license to be open source. Consider the BSD 4-clause license[1]. It's not GPL-Compatible because of the "...you're
by pyre 12y ago
1. "GPL-Compatible" is not a requirement of a license to be open source. Consider the BSD 4-clause license[1]. It's not GPL-Compatible because of the "...you're not allowed to use <name> to endorse/advertise..." clause. Would you say that such a clause makes the license "not open source?"
2. I would say that GPLv2 is still considered open source by even the FSF, but it did not restrict software from being patent-encumbered. This was one of the major "loopholes" that the GPLv3 license was meant to close.
- quadrangle 12y agoyour "considered open source even by the FSF" reference is misleading. The FSF acknowledges that even the BSD license and most other totally permissive licenses are all Free Software (but the FSF doesn't say anything is "open source" as they don't use that term). Yes, indeed GPLv3 (or AGPLv3 or LGPLv3) is the best overall license for protecting freedoms and closing part of the patent concerns.
- pyre 12y agoMy intention wasn't meant to be misleading. I was under the impression that the FSF (& RMS) didn't consider even the BSD licenses to be Free Software because it was possible for proprietary software to incorporate it without giving back. If the FSF does consider the totally permissive licenses to be Free Software, I see that as a good thing. :)
- dllthomas 12y agoThe FSF considers any software that respects "the Four Freedoms" (freedom to run for any purpose, freedom to study and modify, freedom to redistribute, and freedom to redistribute your changes) to be "Free Software". None of the freedoms in question require copyleft. Copyleft is a strategic choice to preserve these freedoms and make it easier to build software that does respect them compared to software that does not.