[Approval request] CMGPL licence

phil hunt philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk
Wed Nov 7 22:42:05 UTC 2001

On Wednesday 07 November 2001  7:20 pm, Marcel van der Boom wrote:
> > 2) because the GPL is very well understood, not needing new
> > mental machinery to figure out what is and isn't permitted;
> I disagree, the GPL is *widely used* but not well understood.

And do you think a new license similar to thew GPL *would* be well

> > 3) because I don't see sufficient evidence that deleting 3c and
> > making other essentially trivial changes really makes such
> > a difference to your business needs.
> Well, we do (obviously). We don't see the need for 3c 

If your license omits 3c, then I cannot take code under your license
and link it with GPL'd code. The GPL is the most widely-used open
source license and i see no good reason to introduce gratuitous
incompatibilities with it.

> license to be as lean as possible. The advocacy of the GPL in the
> license itself is actually bothering us. The license deals with
> rights and obligations. The explanation is not part of it (in my
> opinion). We've done some GPL-ed work and customers (actually
> almost all of them) asked us to remove the section. This was the
> trigger to draw up our own license without the preamble.

Which is fair enough; but keep 3c please.

*** Philip Hunt *** philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk ***

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

More information about the License-discuss mailing list