My sense of this is that it happens every time someone embeds Henry Spencer's Regexp code into GPL'd software. I'm using this as an example in a study of OSS that I am conducting for the Document Management Alliance. (I see it is worthwhile to include the MIT license in the discussion too!) -- Dennis ------------------ Dennis E. Hamilton InfoNuovo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel. +1-206-779-9430 (gsm) fax. +1-425-793-0283 http://www.infonuovo.com -----Original Message----- From: Jules Bean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 16:48 To: Scott Johnston Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Can you alter the MIT license? On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Scott Johnston wrote: > > ---------- > >From: Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >In particular, the GPL says that you must make available the source of the > >whole work. Now this is an additional restriction on top the the MIT one, > >but it's not in conflict with the MIT one - it doesn't ask you to do > >anything you aren't allowed to do. > > I see. This is what Bruce must have meant (about adding terms to the MIT > license that are not in conflict with the original terms). Know of anyone > doing this, adding a copyleft term to a non-copyleft piece of free software? Not off-hand, I'm afraid. I'm sure there are many examples around... [ ... ]
