Re: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?]
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Okay guys, how about a few suggestions?
Well, the obvious answer is that you can LGPL it, and add the restriction
that the combined work must be licensed under a license that either is
a) OSI-Approved Open Source (as found on www.opensource.org) or
b) matches the Open Source Definition (as found on www.opensource.org)
(Stallman in general doesn't like amendments to his licenses, though if it
increases the amount of code thats forced to be published he may be happy,
though of course his opinion is you should GPL it.)
The latter may be harder to enforce than the former, if someone uses a new
license that they claim conforms but hasn't been cetified.
The quandry, though, is that if you're trying to prevent linking with
non-open-source projects, this probably won't help you, since open source
licenses themselves usually allow for some form of linking with
non-open-source software. BSD/MIT/Apache, MPL, etc... the first-order
derivitive might have to be open-source, but does that mean the
second-order derivative would be? Certainly the first-order LGPL/OSL
parts would be, but not the whole.
If you want infinite virality, i.e. every derivative must be
"open-source", then the GPL may be what you want anyways.