Re: license for a mix of free sw + propritary stuff
#include <hallo.h>
David Starner wrote on Sun Apr 29, 2001 um 11:03:48PM:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:59:02PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > epsUtils
> > --------
> >
> > The GPL apply wit the following ammendment.
>
> In what way does the GPL apply? The author apparently wants to avoid
It applies to his own code. There is a closed-source library with the
mentioned limitation (no source, no reverse engeneering) and his own
Tools + UI on the top of this.
> section 2 (which requires you to distribute the program as whole
> under the GPL), and then tacks on an attribution clause and what is
> basically a patch clause. He should throw out the GPL here all
> together, and pick or write a license that better fits what he
> intends.
Hello! What did I ask in the previous mail? Exactly this.
The author would like to change the license to another free one. But
WHICH license would meet his expectations?
> Unless I've signed a license to that effect, in most places,
> I believe I do have the right to reverse engineer those
> control sequences.
IMHO not if these was forbidden explicitely. But I am not a lawyer and I
don't want to get one, so I need a mixed license that forbidds this in
any case.
> An ugly patch clause and an attribution clause. Does the author
> understand what the GPL is, or did he just pick it because everyone
> else uses it?
I think, he undestands in most parts, since he is willing to provide
open source software freely, but he signed this NDA and must live with
it now. He also wants to change to GPL as soon as the hardware
descriptions used in this library, are available freely.
Gr{us,eeting}s,
Eduard.
--
====================================================================
Eduard Bloch <blade@debian.org>; HP: http://eduard.bloch.com/edecosi
0xEDF008C5(GnuPG): E6EB 98E2 B885 8FF0 6C04 5C1D E106 481E EDF0 08C5
**
GNU GPL: "The source will be with you... always."
Reply to: