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

Re: Copyleft variation of MIT license

Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <46113667.50307@ucsc.edu>, Suraj N. Kurapati
> <skurapat@ucsc.edu> writes
>> The MIT license has the following properties (from Ed Burnette's
>> survey[3] of free software licenses):
>>  4. Source to bug fixes and modifications must be released? No
>> I tried to modify the conditions paragraph of the MIT license so
>> that question 4 (shown above) is given a "Yes" answer.
> If that's what you want, look at the LGPL.

Thanks for your suggestion, but it seems I had oversimplified my
intentions when I wrote the above. One of my intentions was to
specify a set of basic requirements for my source code and not go
far as to restrict the code to a particular license. That is, I want
to allow my code to be sucked into any superset license.

In this manner, I feel the LGPL is too restrictive because since it
narrows down its list of superset licenses to only LGPL and GPL.

Reply to: