GPL compatibility of a simple license

[Karsten M. Self]

on Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:29:10PM -0700, David Johnson (david at usermode.org) wrote:
> On Sunday 22 June 2003 10:46 am, Assert wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to modify a software that is not maintained anymore by
> > its original author. As I would be interested in integrating GPL'ed
> > code with it, my question is do you think it is 'compatible' with the
> > GPL:
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Please note the following:
> >
> > (1) *PLEASE* do not release new versions of Power-Post without
> >      making it EXPLICITLY CLEAR that it is a modified version.
> >      For example, call it "Kinko's Power-Post" or something, so
> >      people will not ask me for support for something I did not
> >      write.
> >
> > (2) If you do release a new version based on this code, simply
> >      give me (Chris Morse) credit in the Help/About.
> >
> > (3) Power-Post 2000 is built with Visual C++ 6.0, uses MFC, and
> >      is multi-threaded.  This will not compile with other
> >      compilers without making some modifications.
> >
> > (4) At the moment, I have not written any documentation on the
> >      source code.  If I get enough questions, I'll write a little
> >      FAQ that explains the basic structure of the code.
> >
> > (5) Power-Post 2000 is FREEWARE.  Any modified versions must
> >      be FREEWARE too.  The original spirit of usenet is not dead!
> >
> > (6) Power-Post was one of my first internet applications that I
> >      wrote, and the source code isn't nearly as neat and orderly
> >      as I would like it to be.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This isn't a real license. It seems to be part of a README file. Only 
> clause number 2 and 5 have any legal weight behind them, as everything 
> else is a request or comment and operates under the key phrase "Please 
> note...".

Clause 5 would read far more clearly if "FREEWARE" were defined.

I'd say the terms for distribution are ambiguous, and would avoid the
work.

If you're interested in distributing the work, contact the author and
express your wish that licensing terms be clarified.  GNU GPL, GNU LGPL,
BSD, and MIT/X11 are all examples of GPL-compatible licenses.

IANAL, TINLA, YADA.

Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
   zIWETHEY: Provocative, super smart, and oh yeah, just a little sexy.
     http://z.iwethey.org/forums/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20030623/3ff103a1/attachment.sig>