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

Re: Repost of the DRAFT d-l summary of the OSL v2.0

Fabian Bastin <fabian.bastin@math.fundp.ac.be> writes:

> Just a little question.
>> If you want a copyleft license for your work debian-legal recommends
>> the GPL v2.0.
> What is the recommendation if you want a copyleft license, but no as
> strong as the GPL, in particular if you consider that simply linking a
> module does not produce a derivative work? The LGPL has an annonying
> point since it allows anybody to distribute the product in GPL instead
> of LGPL.

I don't know of a license that does specifically what you want, though I
don't think it would be hard to come up with one.  I think the reason
there isn't one is that there's little reason for such a license.  If
you want to give extra permissions, just use the LGPL.  Why is it
important for your works to be GPL-incompatible?

Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

Reply to: