[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: YAL (Yet another license)

> > Jonathan P Tomer writes:
> > > the legal file requirement is potentially problematic (since it
> > > forces a particular name)

> John Hasler wrote:
> > I Think it is ok (dumb, but ok).  It just requires a particular name
> > for one file, not the package.

On Fri, 7 May 1999, Paul Serice wrote:
> Not too long ago, we had a discussion about the Crafty developer
> forcing the name.  I'm wondering if you think it would be o.k. for him
> to force the name of only the executable.  It would "just require[] a
> particular name for one file, not the package" (to quote you out of
> context :-).

This kind of question might be looked at in terms of DSFG #9.  Imagine I
wrote a package that ALSO contained a similar provision (I require the
executable must be named "notcrafty").  It's clear that the licenses are
not compatible for the case where someone wants to combine code from the
two programs.  The same is true for two programs that require the same
filename for their license.  How do you include both licenses in your
Mark Rafn    dagon@halcyon.com    <http://www.halcyon.com/dagon/>   !G

Reply to: