Re: Recently released QPL
Joseph Carter <email@example.com> writes:
> I would sooner create YAL that had the GPL's terms matched
> with the exception of license compatibility than use a license I KNEW was
> going to limit where others could or could not use my code for the
> purposes of Free Software. If my code is being used in Free Software, I
> don't care what Free Software license they use for their code.
Just curious, how would you phrase a license that did not hinder
compatibility yet still prevented someone from modifying the program
and releasing it under non-free terms?
(We just saw an example of what to fear with BIND: its BSD license
allowed modifications under more restrictive licensing conditions,
so the upstream maintainers are now putting out the new version
under a non-free copyright).