Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Suraj N. Kurapati > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> 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. >> > What do you mean by a "superset licence"?
I'm referring to concepts from set theory: A superset license is either (1) this license or (2) this license with additional stuff. (The latter case is a "strict" superset.) > I'm sure you DON'T mean "allow somebody else to add extra > permissions that you didn't". If that's the case, just declare it > Public Domain, and that's an end to it. > > I hope you don't mean "allow someone to add extra restrictions". > That's not copyleft at all. I do mean those things, because it seems you cannot have a GPL compatible license otherwise. For example, suppose you incorporate some MIT licensed code into your GPL code. When you distribute this aggregation, the entire distribution becomes GPL. Next, suppose someone wants to take the incorporated MIT code from the aggregation and put it into his own program... he is now stuck with using GPL for that taken code (since the entire aggregation was distributed under GPL). In this manner, GPL adds extra restrictions onto that incorporated MIT code (i.e. makes it GPL). Since MIT license allows sublicensing, it allows the addition of extra restrictions; so this scenario works nicely. But maybe I am not understanding the GPL correctly... The GPL version 2, condition 2 says: "when you distribute the same sections [GPL code + non-GPL code] as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it." Since the whole distribution must be under the terms of GPL, doesn't that add restrictions to incorporated the MIT code? And doesn't that require all GPL-compatible licenses to allow the addition of extra restrictions? > Provided they don't muck about with your code, ANY licence can be > a sort-of-superset of the LGPL. Just let the LGPL keep your code > copyleft, and let other people do what they like with their code > (INCLUDING including your code in their programs). Interesting. I wonder if the reverse case also works: If I download some LGPL code and it contains some MIT code, can I just take those MIT portions and act upon them, (1) only according to MIT license? (2) only according to LGPL? (3) or both? Thanks for your consideration. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
