Quoting Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The GPL itself covers these points. In principle, debian-legal discourages
>license proliferation.
GPL does cover it, but GPL requires that modifications are made
public. We don't want that.
The GPL does not require this.
I re-read GPL today (after few years), and yes, you are right. Sorry
about this. I actually thought that section 3.b of GPL is mandatory,
but now I see that we could choose between 3.a, 3.b and 3.c - where 3.a
and 3.c look quite suitable to cover all our needs.
We want that modifications only need to be disclosed to the person
that you give executable to (point 3).
This is what the GPL requires. [The difference is that the GPL
requires that you be allowed to redistribute to others the source that
you have been given, but that's most likely what you wanted anyway.]
Understood.
Thanks for your help and clearing this up. I hope I can convice other
members of the project that GPL is the right thing to do. Guys?
M.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
