On Thu, Nov 19, 1998 at 08:37:23PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote: > > The only license that is GPL-compatible is the LGPL. > > Would you like to clarify that, Bruce? I am not a license lawyer, but as far > as I can tell BSD-without-ads, public domain, X consortium, and Artistic do > not impose more restrictions than the GPL (relicensing (derivatives of) such > code under GPL is OK). Artistic does actually.. There are some provisions for the author to be able to say what is and isn't a new version.. The author has more control over releases as a result the license seems to not be GPL compatible. If I'm wrong, that's good actually and the GPL is more flexable than I thought. I'd be interested to see what RMS has said about it, it probably came up once or twice since Netscape wanted the kind of control the Artistic license offers as to revision control, changing the name of derived works, etc. Of course, under the Artistic, we'd have M$cape right now... =p -- Show me the code or get out of my way.
Description: PGP signature