For Approval: Open Project Public License (OPPL)

[Larry Masters]

John,

I do not agree that the GPL would work for this.
I have seen problems in other projects where someone creates an program 
to work with another program but the source code is not released because 
it is argued that the "new program" is not derived from the other, which 
with my understanding of the GPL and US copyright law this could be true 
that the "new program" is not derived.

Program X does this.
Program Y does something else, but will work with Program X.

The GPL also states that the license covers works as a whole. We want to 
make sure that even a plugin when distributed by itself must follow the 
license of the original program, and make source code available. The QPL 
is somthing like what we want, but it did not allow releasing modified 
version of the original program as a whole, you can only release patches.

Larry E. Masters

John Cowan wrote:

>Larry Masters scripsit:
>
>  
>
>>May have to put this back on the drawing board. Basically what we are 
>>wanting to do with the license is "control" code created to work with 
>>the licensed software, control meaning that any software created to work 
>>with it must be released under the same license and source code made 
>>avaiable.
>>    
>>
>
>In that case, I suggest you consider the Open Source License or the GPL,
>both of which have that property.
>
>  
>
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3