Re: [DotGNU]pnetlib and the VRS, SEE and other server concepts

[David Sugar]

I had this discussion with Richard awhile back.  By implication, a GPL 
"convertable" free software license is by definition compatible. 
Essentially, a free software license, to be GPL compatible, simply must 
not assert any additional restrictions.  The original BSD license, with 
the advertising clause, is not considered a GPL compatible license 
because the advertising clause imposes an additional condition.  As a 
practical matter, I much prefer using the GPL, but certainly there are 
other ideas about how free software licensing should be done.

Sometimes people will choose to do a disjunctive license, like perl 
does, so that it can be used either with GPL code or optionally in a 
manner consistent with some other goal(s) the author has chosen.  I 
personally think the most important goal is to preserve the freedom 
offered in Free Software for others, and that the GPL is the best 
vehicle to do this, although I would certainly consider and recommend 
contributing to other freely licensed packages if they fit some niche we 
do not already have a GPL'd package in (XFree86 is a good example of 
this, and it could be argued that so is Apache).

David

Gopal.V wrote:

> If memory serves me right, Jonathan P Springer wrote:
>
> > the BSD license, which AFAIK, has been labelled "incompatible" with GPL.
> > (Don't ask me why -- the last time I tried to explain on a different
> > list, a large flame war resulted.)
>
> 	Don't worry this list a bit more enlightened about GPL. AFAIK, BSD 
> license is a "convertible" license -- not "compatible" because it is 
> not copyleft. 
>
> > I'll refrain from designing this blind; I just wanted to be sure these
> > facts were generally available (or refuted).
>
>         The packet signing idea of PKI is better -- ie PGP style.
> But SSL is for encryption right ?. We need both !. Use SSL
> when we have support at the other end. But use PKI everywhere !.
> The client can chose to ignore/handle it depending on the security
> required.
>
> <xmlpacket signature="....">
> ...
> </xmlpacket>
>
>         Also we need to consider that we may switch to jabber later.