On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 01:12:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On 2/20/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I still don't understand how either of these (whether Qmail or TeX) could > > have been considered so critical that it justified sacrificing code reuse, > > allowing licenses to effectively prohibit it. People say "trust me, we > > thought about this", but I have yet to hear the resulting rationale, if > > there ever really was any. > > Code re-use (in the sense of using the code outside the package > in question) wasn't one of the priorities. > > If it had been, we'd have required everything be compatible with > the GPL.
Not any code can reuse any other code, but patch clauses mean code can't even be reused in code with the *same license*, prohibiting it entirely. I hope you're wrong and that "code reuse is unimportant and can be prohibited" wasn't really the rationale. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
