Re: license for a mix of free sw + propritary stuff
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:38:26AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > 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?
What are his expectations? He could use the Artistic license, BSD,
MozPL, or LGPL, or any one of a number of licenses. He could
simply say "GPL with the exception that you can link to FOO library."
> > 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.
It's not in the power of a copyright license to forbid me from reverse
engineering something. That would take a shrinkwrap license.
> 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.
A free software license can't forbid reverse engineering. Don't
combine the licenses; use one license for the free software
and one license for the non-free software.
--
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg
Reply to: