On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 02:59:35PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: > Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > I'd like to change the license (currently GPL) like this: > > > > This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it > > under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the > > Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your > > option) any later version. Additionally, you are granted permission to > > assume, for the purposes of distributing this program in object code or > > executable form under Section 3 of the GNU General Public License, that > > the XForms library (Copyright (c) by T.C. Zhao and Mark Overmars) > > is normally distributed with the major components of the > > operating system on which the executable or object code runs. > >
I suggested a similarly worded license a while back and then noticed a problem -- it doesn't allow code from the program to be reused in another program distributed under the standard GPL. > > This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, > > but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > > MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the > > GNU General Public License for more details. > > > > You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License > > along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software > > Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA > > That won't work. The additional permission granted doesn't help us, > since we also distribute Qt itself. (Read paragraph 3 of the GPL: > "... unless that component itself accompanies the executable"). > Whoops... > Try something like, > > "Additionally, the source code of the Qt library is specifically > exempted from being considered part of the source code for this > program under Section 3 of the GNU General Public License." > Don't forget the _option_ of using the standard GPL so the license can revert if someone rips out all the Qt stuff for GTK--. > This is still incomplete, since you don't specify *which* Qt library. > The one distributed by Troll Tech? That's rather limiting, and I'd > consider the resulting program non-free, since for example we wouldn't > be able to link it with a Qt that was modified to fix bugs. If you allow > more, how much more? This could easily open up a loophole in the GPL. > Perhaps you'd be better off with the MIT license in the first place. > Sigh.. Incompatible licenses... -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
