Mahesh T Pai wrote:
> That one line is superfluous. That is what the statute book says.
> Since it there in the statute book, this is how it will be, whether you
> say it or not.
IANAL, but isn't that true only until they change the statute book?
In other words, isn't there something to be sai
Bruce Dodson wrote:
> All rights not specifically granted in this agreement are reserved
> to the copyright holder(s).
>
That one line is superfluous. That is what the statute book says.
Since it there in the statute book, this is how it will be, whether you
say it or not.
> Your rights to
Seems to me that it is not GPL compatible. The GPL expressly
prohibits combining with licenses that have more restrictive terms
than the GPL.
"without fee" is a restriction the GPL does not include.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Okay. I can add that "or under GPL" clause; it doesn't really make the
license harder to understand, and it's worth it to ensure GPL compatibility.
I will have to work on some simple explanation of what "modifications"
means. Suggestions are welcome! I'm thinking if the resulting software
ends
Bruce Dodson wrote:
> disclaimers appear in supporting documentation. When you
> distribute this software outside your organization, the source
> code (including any modifications) must be made available to the
> recipients under these license terms.
You have not defined the copyleft sc
"These terms" will make it not GPL compatible because
the GPL is not identical to "these terms." Maybe
something like "the source code (including any
modifications) must be made available to the
recipients under these terms or the terms of the GNU
General Public License..."
--- Bruce Dodson <[EM
6 matches
Mail list logo
