[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-licensing
Subject: Re: Suggestions for wording...?
From: forge <forge () myrealbox ! com>
Date: 2000-06-18 11:04:27
[Download RAW message or body]
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
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic