Humberto Massa wrote: > @ 10/05/2004 16:44 : wrote Benjamin Cutler : > >>Humberto Massa wrote: >> >> >>>@ 10/05/2004 16:26 : wrote Benjamin Cutler : >>> >>> >>> >> >> **The library itself would be GPL.** >> >> > See below :-) > >>I just added some additional freedoms/terms for people who want to make >>commercial/proprietary/closed source programs with it, as the GPL as I >>understand it requires programs using GPL libraries to be GPL >>themselves. >> >> > But only if those are non-commercial... I think I understand what you > want, some of the extra LGPL freedoms, but in a narrower way. You can > make it a GPL'd with exceptions, like: > > "this library is distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL [[ , v2 or > later at your option ]]; as an exception, you can link any proprietary > program with this library or a modified version, PROVIDED said program > is distributed ABSOLUTELY GRATUITOUSLY, Please don't use this wording; it means something very funny (but not useful) in ordinary English.
> and not under any other > circumstances, AND the distribution of the library continues to abide > the terms of the GNU GPL. If you want to link your proprietary program > with this library, contact cutler(at)something, that is the original > copyrights holder, and ask for other terms of licensing". the part in > [[]] is optional. > > I hope this helps you, but my recommendation is still... go GPL pure and > simple. I don't know if there is any good in making the library > available to the "freeware" gratuitous, non-DFSG-free software hordes... > :-) > -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
