On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Joseph Carter wrote: > Hopefully this clarifies Talin's request a bit.. I won't be able to > answer for at least 10 hours, probably longer. I'm going to BED. > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 10:29:32AM -0700, Talin wrote: > > I recieved a few suggestions which, unfortunately, seem to be based on > > misunderstandings of what I'm asking for. > > > > The license that I want should have the following features: > > > > 1. Be compatible with the GPL.
Then you must use a license with *fewer* restrictions than the GPL, and don't deny adding restrictions. For example, the BSD/MIT/Apache licenses, at least the newer versions without the advertising clauses. Only those kinds of licenses are compatible with the GPL. > > 2. Allow linking with other open-source licenses. Almost any license which satisfies #1 will satisfy #2. Do you also have a requirement on what license the "larger work" will be under? If that is "GPL", then certain open-source licenses will not be compatible, as they have their own requirements about larger works, such as the MPL. > > 3. Should be as restrictive as the GPL when it comes to proprietary > > software, i.e. it only allows linking with proprietary software in > > certain special cases. Since you can't simultaneously have fewer restrictions than the GPL, and be as restrictive, this may be where the inconsistancy lies. > > Here is the language I came up with: > > ---- > > A special exception to the GPL listed below is that this > > program may be linked with any libraries or components that are > > distributed under a license that meets the Open Source Definition > > (http://www.opensource.org/osd.html), and that such components > > shall be considered seperate works, not covered under the terms > > of this license. > > ---- > > However, I'm not sure that this language is legally sound. Please help > > me debug it. That's fine, however this software will then not be compatible with other pure-GPL software, which would prevent this kind of special-case. I.e. "GPL, except ____" is an oxymoron as a license, though authors of GPL software may choose not to enforce it in certain circumstances (e.g., Linus and binary-only kernel drivers). At least this is my understanding. Brian
