[Approval request] CMGPL licence

John Cowan jcowan at reutershealth.com
Wed Nov 7 22:20:50 UTC 2001

Marcel van der Boom wrote:

> This would be very bad and I'm realizing this, but what I cannot 
> understand is why this would happen with such a minor change.

Because 3c provides a loophole that you are closing.  For a license
to be GPL-compatible, it has to impose conditions that are a subset
of what the GPL imposes.  Alternatively stated, it has to allow
behaviors that are a superset of what the GPL allows.

For example, the modified-BSD license imposes only the condition "Don't
remove this notice", so it is GPL-compatible.  The old BSD license also
imposed "Acknowledge us in your ads", which the GPL does not, so it was

Your license imposes "Send the source code or make a written offer
of it" on everyone, including non-commercial distributors.
Non-commercial distributors have rights under the GPL that your
license denies them: namely, the right to piggyback on someone
else's source distribution.  That means that products under
your license can't have GPLed components.

Not to perambulate             || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
    the corridors               || http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose     || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    in the boots of ascension.  \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel

license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

More information about the License-discuss mailing list