On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 12:14 PM Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Gil Yehuda wrote:
> > I wondered why we don't have an A/LGPL (or A/MPL, A/EPL) that addresses
> the "non-conveyed software gap" but also limits the scope of copyleft to
> the work itself.
>
>
>
> We do. OSL 3.0.
>
This is missing the point. While Larry is happy to create another license
which implements a limited copyleft, the Free Software Foundation's purpose
is, of course, Free Software. So, while all manner of things *could *be
done to facilitate addition of proprietary software to software under one
of their licenses, they have done what they think is necessary to support
that in issuing LGPL and GPL-with-exception, and simply aren't interested
in going any farther.
This is important, because you will have all manner of unfulfilled
expectations if you understand licenses, but don't understand the
motivations of the people who create them.
Thanks
Bruce
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
