> Only if their fork is still a software library. Nobody can fork it to
> become an application.
I'm not sure how your problem is actually a restriction. Suppose, I
as a developer wish to distriibute at application the uses the library
in question. To distribute my application, I simply distri
Hello Mark,
would you be satisfied if we added a clause that looked something like:
At your discretion, you may apply the terms of the ordinary GNU GPL (as
published by the FSF) to your modified copy of the Library, and copy and
distribute such work under the terms of the GNU GPL, provided that yo
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Rod Dixon wrote:
> I think there are two issues here: [1] the section 2a requirement that
> limits the rights granted to the public distribution of libraries and [2]
> the licensor's intent to permit dynamic linking of the open source library
> with non-free software. If this
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Christophe Dupre wrote:
> Hello Mark,
> I've just re-read the OSD document, and I'm not sure we read the same
> one. You claim that 2a and 2d are unacceptable and violate OSD#3.
> OSD#3 is not violated: you can change the code, you can distribute those
> modifications. #3 do
I think there are two issues here: [1] the section 2a requirement that
limits the rights granted to the public distribution of libraries and [2]
the licensor's intent to permit dynamic linking of the open source library
with non-free software. If this is correct, then section 3 of the LGPL,
which s
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> : Am I the only one who thinks 2a and 2d are unacceptible? It violates
> : OSD#3 by limiting the type of derived work,
> I think you have to evaluate the license in the context of what the author
> has told us about his purpose.
I at least pa
Hi all,
does anybody know of a comparisaon between the different OS licenses that
exist and their pros and cons ?
Thanks.
- FL
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
7 matches
Mail list logo
