Re: Theoretical Library License
Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 10/05/2004 16:44 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
>>Humberto Massa wrote:
>>>@ 10/05/2004 16:26 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
>> >> **The library itself would be GPL.**
> See below :-)
>>I just added some additional freedoms/terms for people who want to make
>>commercial/proprietary/closed source programs with it, as the GPL as I
>>understand it requires programs using GPL libraries to be GPL
> But only if those are non-commercial... I think I understand what you
> want, some of the extra LGPL freedoms, but in a narrower way. You can
> make it a GPL'd with exceptions, like:
> "this library is distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL [[ , v2 or
> later at your option ]]; as an exception, you can link any proprietary
> program with this library or a modified version, PROVIDED said program
> is distributed ABSOLUTELY GRATUITOUSLY,
Please don't use this wording; it means something very funny (but not
useful) in ordinary English.
> and not under any other
> circumstances, AND the distribution of the library continues to abide
> the terms of the GNU GPL. If you want to link your proprietary program
> with this library, contact cutler(at)something, that is the original
> copyrights holder, and ask for other terms of licensing". the part in
> [] is optional.
> I hope this helps you, but my recommendation is still... go GPL pure and
> simple. I don't know if there is any good in making the library
> available to the "freeware" gratuitous, non-DFSG-free software hordes...
There are none so blind as those who will not see.