best gpl/lgpl conversion clause?

[Karsten M. Self]

on Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 09:27:16PM -0400, John Kane (jkane89 at softhome.net) wrote:
> Does the paragraph below cleanly revert to the GNU family 
> of licenses?  ((The intent is to allow small programs to be 
> redistributed without requiring that a 10-page document be 
> attached to each copy.))
> 
>  ..any person(You)obtaining a copy of this software(Package)..
> > ...When distributing a revised Package (or derivative work),
> > You may opt to do so under the terms of any version of the
> > "GNU Lesser General Public License" instead of this License.

I'd probably be a bit more specific about the license, where it can be
found, and who publishes it.

Really, this is a question for a lawyer.  I'd say your intent is
reasonably clear, but it might get sticky in a court if things came to
blows.  A few moments clarifying this now might save much time later.

I'd also recommend looking at a dual-license option suggested by David.
So long as the provision allowing for distribution/modification/copying
under the terms of the GPL are retained intact, and is sufficiently
clear, you'd probably be doing reasonably well, and avoid the need to
distribute code with the GPL.  Then again, satisfying the requirements
of the GPL isn't a significant burden in most cases.  I recently walked
through this exercise with Tom Oehser and RMS involving Tom's Root/Boot,
a GNU/Linux-on-a-floppy distribution, in which a few KB of licensing
really does add significant baggage.   The solution was to keep the
licensing information separate from the floppy-disk contents themselves,
but distribute the two files together.

Why are you concerned about the overhead of license distribution?

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>    http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?       There is no K5 cabal
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/         http://www.kuro5hin.org
   Disclaimer:          http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20010612/1b311aab/attachment.sig>