[lug] GPL/Open Source License Questions

[Peter Hutnick]

Scott Herod said:

> I agree with you.  There are several "Open Source" licenses.  Someone
> releasing software should consider how they want their package to be
> used  and what freedoms they wish to give to others.

I've cringed several times through this thread on this point.  I'm not
putting this comment here for any specific reason . . .

Please note that the GPL (and LGPL) are "Open Source" by coincidence. 
They are Free by design.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

> BTW, dare I mention that I believe Apache is in violation?  On some
> platforms, it links against libgdbm which is GPL'ed, and I don't believe
>  that the Apache license is compatible with the GPL.

This is a bit hazy.  Anyone who distributes Apache binaries this way is in
violation.  The act, however, of a user linking code that is distributed
under the terms of the GPL with code that is under a GPL incompatible
license is outside the scope of the GPL, but is implicitly /protected/ by
the GPL.

-Peter