Re: Questions

[Aleksey Sanin <aleksey aleksey com>]

Free software != GPLed / LGPLed software. Mozilla, OpenSSL, Apache
and lot of other free software have non-GPL compatible licenses
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses).
Does this mean that GNOME project should reject it and any code derived
from it? Personally I think that this will not help GNOME. IMHO, 
restrictions
do not help to move forward.

Aleksey,


Jeff Waugh wrote:

> <quote who="Aleksey Sanin">
>
>  
>
> > I would feel very bad if at one day GPL license became a requirement for
> > any GNOME project.
> >    
>
> Software in the GNOME Developer Platform must be licensed under the LGPL or
> compatible licenses [1], whilst software in the Desktop, Fifth Toe, Office,
> and Hacker Tools releases must be licensed under the GPL or compatible
> licenses.
>
> This is a long-standing 'policy' for software that the GNOME Project itself
> authors and distributes.
>
> ...  Free Software is _what we do_!
>
> - Jeff
>
> [1] Those that allow proprietary software to build upon the GNOME platform.
> libxml2/libxslt are good examples of Developer Platform libraries that are
> not LGPL'ed -> they were re-released under the MIT License so other projects
> (such as XFree86) could make use of them.
>
>