From kde-licensing  Sun Jun 18 11:04:27 2000
From: forge <forge () myrealbox ! com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:04:27 +0000
To: kde-licensing
Subject: Re: Suggestions for wording...?
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-licensing&m=96132995921640

Talin wrote:
> 
> Well, I've decided that regardless of what anyone else does, I'm going
> to modify my own application's license (note that my app is not part of
> the "official" KDE, and in fact is not even released yet, but it's built
> on top of the KDE libraries. You can find out about it at
> http://anima.sourceforge.net)
> 
> What I'd like to do is write a modification to the GPL which expresses
> the following intent: I want to allow linking with _any_ code which is
> distributed under a license that conforms to the open source definition.
> However, I want my own program files to be covered under the GPL. In
> other words, it's sort of half-way between the GPL and the LGPL -
> whereas the LGPL allows linking to anything, this would allow linking to
> open-source only.
> 
> So in other words, as long as the "work as a whole" is open source, it
> doesn't matter if there are parts which have more restrictive licenses
> restrictive than the parts I wrote.
> 
> Is this doable without weakening the license too much, or making it
> inconsistent?
> 
> (BTW, is there an official "Free Software Definition", similar to the
> "Open Source Definition"?)

Yes there is.  The Debian free Software Guidelines which the OSS 
definition is based on.  It's somewhere on debian.org