Re: Recently released QPL
Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> 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?
The LGPL works fairly well, except it allows people to use pieces in
proprietary programs. Perhaps GPL with the explicit permission to link
it against other DFSG licensined code? (Not as legal rigourous, but it
should work.)
--
David Starner - OSU student - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
If you want a real optimist, look up Ray Bradbury. Guy's nuts.
He actually likes people. -David Brin
Reply to: