GPLv3's secretive Additional Terms
cowan at ccil.org
Thu Apr 22 14:03:19 UTC 2010
opensource.*.nwo at neverbox.com scripsit:
> > Sure they can. That's the license of Guile, for instance; GPL, but you
> > use Guile in arbitrary programs including proprietary ones.
> That makes no sense. GPL's main idea is being viral, remember? LGPL was
> created to deal with your example.
The license of Guile (which isn't actually used by Guile any more) is different
from the LGPL. With the LGPL, you have to deliver your application in such a way
that it's possible to update the LGPLed component. With the license of Guile,
there is no such restriction. Both are the GPL with additional permissions.
> > If you're the copyright owner, you can license the code any way you want.
> If you're the copyright owner, that gives you the right to choose a
> license, not to rewrite licenses and still call them by their brand name.
> I've noticed you sent this privately to me, so I replied privately. Not
> sure why.
An error on my part. I'm redirecting back to the list.
John Cowan cowan at ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan
Rather than making ill-conceived suggestions for improvement based on
uninformed guesses about established conventions in a field of study with
which familiarity is limited, it is sometimes better to stick to merely
observing the usage and listening to the explanations offered, inserting
only questions as needed to fill in gaps in understanding. --Peter Constable
More information about the License-discuss