Question about a specific license

James Michael DuPont mdupont777 at
Mon Feb 10 11:50:47 UTC 2003

--- John Cowan <cowan at> 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
> ( 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

Thanks again,

James Michael DuPont

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list