"Amanjit Gill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - I really like the GNU GPL and LGPL for software that corresponds > to infrastructure (i.e. things that should be provided on any > system, and must be "free" and interoperatable because it is so easy > for software to be incompatible (you only need to change one byte).
That is the wrong reason to like the GPL/LGPL, since both of them guarantee the freedom to change the code. > - I pretty much dislike the GPL (and LGPL because of the clause that > you can "relicense" the work under the GPL) for everything else, > i.e. Applications. Your likings and dislikings are somewhat peculiar. > - I am looking for a BSD-style license, that is as BSD-compatible as > possible but practically prohibits "relicensing" the work under the > GPL or GPL-compatible licenses. This is nonsense. The whole purpose of BSD-style licenses is to _permit_ relicensing, as proprietary, or as GPL or other. > I basically found bits of code that was initially released under a > BSD license, but somehow years afterwards someone made a GPL version > of that software (same name, but only bugfixes or compiler changes > in the code). I want to prevent this side-effect in an open source > software I am about to write. > > Any Ideas? You need to get your ideas sorted out. The purpose of the BSD license is to _permit_ relicensing to different licenses (including proprietary licenses). The purpose of the GPL is to _not_ permit relicensing to different licenses. If you _don't_ want people to be able to change the associated freedoms in relicensing, you need to use the _GPL_, not a BSD license. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
