Glad to see that there is a workaround in this particular case, but the larger issue still remains. What should be the best way to proceed when license issues prevent technical progress? This isn't a case of proprietary versus open source, but rather, where legal maneuvering in an attempt to keep two products "open" have prevented technical progress.
That isn't supposed to happen with open source projects. Quite the opposite, actually. The entire purpose of copyleft is to ensure that the very best open technology can be examined, built upon, and shared.
I would be very curious as to hear where the incomparabilities arise. Is it due to the inflexibility of the GPL? And should the Linux kernel consider moving to another, less restrictive license, such as the LGPL? Or even a BSD style license?
Discussion on:
Message 2 of 1
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
