On Jul 1, 2004, at 14:48, Remco Seesink wrote:
The only thing you can't do is to restrict anyone else from using it
however
they see fit. You may not change the rules I have set on how it can
be used.
What exactly is this trying to require? I can see several things:
1) You may not change the license on this code. This is a no-op;
I have no standing to do that.
2) You may not bring legal action to stop others' use of this code.
For example, you may not sue for patent infringement. Free? Who
knows; massive can o' worms. [This is how I'd read it]
3) You must distribute all derivative works under this license.
Free, but GPL-incompatible. Also not really a copyleft; I
don't have to distribute source.
4) You must distribute all derivative works under this license.
You must also distribute source, because failing to do so
would prevent others from using it as they see fit.
5) You must distribute all derivative works under this license.
You must also distribute source. You must also make sure your
modifications are clearly documented and cleanly written,
because obscure, undocumented code restricts others' use.
[This is the most far-stretched reading I could even attempt
to justify.]
For (1), I suggest using the MIT X11 license, or two-clause BSD
license. For 2, reconsider. For 3, I suggest reconsidering, but if you
really must, GPL with an optional exception that you don't have to
provide source. For 4, GPL. For 5, non-free.
Do we know which the author intends?
