Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Suraj N. Kurapati > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> The MIT license has the following properties (from Ed Burnette's >> survey[3] of free software licenses): >> >> 4. Source to bug fixes and modifications must be released? No >> >> I tried to modify the conditions paragraph of the MIT license so >> that question 4 (shown above) is given a "Yes" answer. > > If that's what you want, look at the LGPL.
Thanks for your suggestion, but it seems I had oversimplified my intentions when I wrote the above. One of my intentions was to specify a set of basic requirements for my source code and not go far as to restrict the code to a particular license. That is, I want to allow my code to be sucked into any superset license. In this manner, I feel the LGPL is too restrictive because since it narrows down its list of superset licenses to only LGPL and GPL. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
