Question about a specific license

[James Michael DuPont]

--- John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> James Michael DuPont scripsit:
> 
> > I want to be able to extend a BSD-Like licensed code into a better,
> > more functional and GPLed module, where It cannot be "Hit and Run"
> (or
> > was that "Embraced and Extend") by corporations with no scruples.
> > 
> > For work done on my free time, I see no need to give away my code
> to
> > highly paid corporations. If they want my work, they can pay me.
> 
> Oh, okay.  In that case, the important point is to carry the original
> license along, but make it clear that it is not controlling for this
> version of the code.  Personally, I would do something like this.
> Just after the original copyright, insert:
> 
> 	The following text appears here by the requirements of
> 	the licensor of an earlier version of this code.  It does
> 	NOT constitute the license for this version.  To see the
> 	license for this version, consult the file COPYING enclosed
> 	with your distribution, or etc. etc. etc.
> 
> The current Python license
> (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/PythonSoftFoundation.php) looks
> like this:
> the operative license comes first (after a lengthy preamble
> explaining
> what's going on) and then all the other dead licenses trail along
> behind.

Great! that is really interesting. Thank you for all your advice. 
I am learning alot from this dicussion.

Just for the record, I am not a GPL bigot, and I do plan on
contributing  back to the w3c licensed code (and have done so this
weekend). There are however some small cases where that does not make
sense. 

Thanks again,
mike




=====
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3