On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 09:26:00PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > 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?
You have to specify someplace what terms are required of the code being
linked to. If my code is under one license and you use a file from my
code in something say under a BSDish license, you can pretty much do
whatever you want with the BSDish code as far as its license is
concerned, however my code must be used only as the license on my code
permits it.
Somewhere in the license you specify what terms modified works are
permitted under. For changes in my code, the changes would be under the
same license, similar to the GPL and LGPL. For things outside my code,
they can be under any Free Software license (definition needs to be
either included or referenced)
That's probably the simplest way.
> (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).
Well, nothing in bind was exactly under a license which would prohibit
this, was it?
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE The Source Comes First!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Chalky> gcc is the best compressor ever ported to linux. it can turn
12MB of kernel source (and that's .debbed) into a 500k kernel
Attachment:
pgpprJ91_Kblz.pgp
Description: PGP signature