Fwd: Modified GPL Question

[James W. Thompson, II]

The more I think about it the more unclear I am becoming on this.


On 02 Nov 2004 13:42:51 -0500, Michael Poole <mdpoole at troilus.org> wrote:
> James W. Thompson, II writes:
> 
> > I know this may not be specifically germane to this list but I wanted
> > to try my luck at getting a response. Below is a message I sent to
> > licensing at gnu.org regarding a 'Modified GPL' concern, the original
> > message explains the issue best. I want to know if there is anything I
> > am missing on this issue.
> 
> The copyright holder(s) -- I will assume it is just you -- may release
> software under any license at all.  The problem with your added clause
> is not whether *you* would violate the GPL, but whether others would.
> There are some very ambiguous situations.
> 
> For example, the three-clause BSD license is an OSI approved Open
> Source license.  It does not require distribution of source with
> binaries.  The question for the licensee is what your license means in
> that situation: what source code, and what rights, must they provide
> to people to whome the licensee gives the combined work?
> 
> Are your goals satisfactorily met by the LGPL?
> 
> Michael Poole
> 


-- 
James W. Thompson, II (New Orleans, LA)