on Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 10:45:02AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
xs@kittenz.org xs@kittenz.org wrote:
Apparently, it's the APSL. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html Something was quite amusing: * It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary. (copyleft != freedom)
Given that it is known (indeed, said elsewhere on that site) that there are non- and weak-copyleft free licences, what is amusing about that statement of fact?
Perhaps the logic didn't translate so well.
GPL =~ copyleft, so GPL software isn't free (freedom) software because, as the above implies, linking with proprietary code is not allowed. Coming from the "Free Software" Foundation...
Similar things are like (from the GPL):
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
And then they complain about central control, when fsf centrally controls the license on your software and can change it at any point, at the end-user's option, of course, which may possibly be to their advantage.. (Loop hole in GPL v6.0 allows user to sue you, but when you released software using GPL v2.0, no such loophole existed.)