On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 02:38:20PM +0100, Alex Schroeder wrote: > I'm looking for some advice concerning the wording of the following > license. The goal is to keep this license as short as possible while > still making it a copyleft license upgradable to any of the other > licenses. > > 1. You have the right to copy, modify, and/or distribute the work. > > 2. You must grant recipients the same rights. > > 3. You must inform recipients of their rights. > > 4. When you distribute the work, you must provide the recipients > access to the preferred form for making copies and > modifications, for no more than your costs of doing so. > > 5. Recipients must place identical restrictions on derivative > works. > > 6. You may change the license to any other copyleft licsense such > as the GPL, GFDL, CC SA, or the XEmacs manual license. s/licsense/license/ You should spell these licenses out in full, such as "the GNU General Public License, as published by the Free Software Foundation". You should include the "as published by" clause so that nobody unscrupulous decides to publish a GPL that is really a proprietary license. There are some rather serious problems with the GFDL that Debian is trying to work out with the FSF. You can search the archives when they come back online. > Item 4, for example, has a peculiar wording because the old wording > was deemed unclear: "You must make it trivially easy for recipients > to copy and modify the work." This does seem to be ambiguous. -- Brian M. Carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> 0x560553e7
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature