Re: Recently released QPL
On Sun, Mar 28, 1999 at 02:16:36PM -0800, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> > The Author who wants to put his changes under a very free license (assuming
> > incompatible with GPL) thinks this is not a disservice to the Free Software
> > community. But then, he does not colicense it under the GPL. Why? You don't
> > give me a good reason for it ("they just don't want to" is no reason for
> > me).
>
> I have one possible solution. I've been thinking on how I could do that
> with my code and I'm coming up blank. What would the wording be that will
> let me license "foobar" under my own, prefered, license *AND* the GPL?
This is exactly what we mean with colicensing, which I agree is probably the
one and only solution to this problem. here is how it is done for perl:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of either:
a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
Software Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any
later version, or
b) the "Artistic License" which comes with Debian.
[... read on in /usr/doc/perl/copyright ... ]
thanls,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: