On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:45 AM, user923005 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 16, 6:23 am, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I've been doing some thinking about licensing and what I personally >> really care about. >> >> I realise there are only four things that really matter to me: >> >> 1) That my copyright notice be maintained. >> 2) That any offer to redistribute in binary form is accompanied by an >> equal offer to redistribute in source form (the code should always be >> open in the academic sense - open for study, open for verification). >> 3) That redistribution of the code in binary or source form as part of >> any closed source packages is prohibited without my explicit written >> permission. >> 4) Redistribution with modification is allowed (subject to terms 1-3). >> >> (Just to clarify, I'm not hereby relicensing any of my previously >> written code with the above conditions, I'm merely thinking about >> finding a license of that kind for my future work.) >> >> Does anyone know of a license similar to that? > > It sounds like a cross between Berkeley style licenses and LGPL. > > Of course, you can write your own license terms in any way that you > like. > >> It's more permissive than the GPL as commercial use is permitted as >> long as I have given explicit permission. It would also get right >> around the whole v2/v3 and LGPL/GPL debates. >> >> The interesting thing is, were I to contribute code to eMPIRe under >> such a license the overall license would be more permissive than GPL >> and less permissive than LGPL. >> >> This would obviate the need for having two different versions of >> eMPIRe. >> >> Does anyone have any comments on this? Am I missing something >> important? > > There are many products that have multiple license terms. Examples: > MySQL has GPL and commercial license. > Same for QT. > > I have seen combined Berkeley license and LGPL on some sourceforge > projects (the end-users chooses -- this is to fascilitate use in as > many places as possible so that both Berkeley style and LGPL style > projects can use the code which might be prohibited otherwise). > > I suggest that you create a license that has the exact terms you > want. It's your project, after all.
Personally, I think this is not very good advice. Sure, technically one can create a new license, but I think this should be done only when one can make a compelling case that no popular existing license satisfies their requirements. In the above situation, I think your example of QT shows that GPL already satisfies Bill's requirements since he can license the same code by request under a more permissive license if he wants. William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to mpir-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
