Ladna
Junior Member
Posts: 235
Registered: 04-10 |
Gez said:
Exhaustive license list here.
As long as the whole is non-commercial and open-source, and that copyright notices in the source code are not modified or removed, the terms of all licenses are complied with.
It's at least a little more complicated than that:
BUILDLIC.TXT:
Any derivative works based on my Build source may be distributed ONLY through the INTERNET.
That means it can't be burnt onto Debian CDs. It means it can't ship on consoles, handhelds or phones.
===
I want to soapbox about the "asinine" GPL. The GPL restriction that you can't link against a non-free library is intended to ensure that software remains free. Imagine if the Apache devs suddenly decided that you needed to link against libpoison.so in order to run their webserver, and the source to that library is closed. That sucks, I hope it doesn't root my machine. I hope there aren't security vulnerabilities. I hope there aren't bugs.
Essentially it means GPL software can't be held hostage to non-free software.
It's also worth mentioning that libraries don't have to be GPL, just GPL compatible. That's why BSD libraries (generally) are OK.
I can understand being aggravated that GPL projects can't use cool whiz-bang non-free libraries, but that's really not the GPL's fault. Rather, it's because those libraries aren't GPL compatible, and in the grand scheme, open source == good, closed source == bad.
So if anything is "asinine", it's developers releasing closed-source libraries, and popular projects like ZDoom only exacerbate the problem by relying on them; this pressures competing projects to take the same shortcuts, and before you know it your whole community relies on closed source software. Not at all great.
|