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

[Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?]

Okay guys, how about a few suggestions?

Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>               GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/)         20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/)   44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3

<lux> if macOS is for the computer illiterate, then windoze is for the
      computer masochists

--- Begin Message ---
Well, I've decided that regardless of what anyone else does, I'm going
to modify my own application's license (note that my app is not part of
the "official" KDE, and in fact is not even released yet, but it's built
on top of the KDE libraries. You can find out about it at

What I'd like to do is write a modification to the GPL which expresses
the following intent: I want to allow linking with _any_ code which is
distributed under a license that conforms to the open source definition.
However, I want my own program files to be covered under the GPL. In
other words, it's sort of half-way between the GPL and the LGPL -
whereas the LGPL allows linking to anything, this would allow linking to
open-source only.

So in other words, as long as the "work as a whole" is open source, it
doesn't matter if there are parts which have more restrictive licenses
restrictive than the parts I wrote.

Is this doable without weakening the license too much, or making it

(BTW, is there an official "Free Software Definition", similar to the
"Open Source Definition"?)

Talin (Talin@ACM.org)       "I am life's flame. Respect my name.
www.sylvantech.com/~talin    My fire is red, my heart is gold.
www.hackertourist.com/talin  Thy dreams can be...believe in me,
                             If you will let my wings unfold..."
                               -- Heather Alexander

--- End Message ---

Reply to: