fred trotter scripsit: > This is more an issue of brand maintenance. Lets say I create license > called "Fred's Unusually Nice License" and then I convince everyone > in the investor/developer communities that this is a good way to make > money and still make Libre software in the end. But then someone > writes a license called "Franks Usual Dissonance License" as the > temporary proprietary license that goes with my FUN license.
FUN should provide the proprietary license itself: Ghu knows, they are all pretty much the same. Only the open-source license should be templated. > I have been burned pretty badly by people who literally rewrote > sections of the GPL to suit them and still called it "GPL" that I know > that some people will try those shenanigans. When you find such people, point the FSF at them! They are blatantly violating the FSF's copyright, as the license for the GPL itself (contained in the first sentence) plainly says changing it is not allowed. $50,000 damages is a jolly good threat to get people to stop. -- One art / There is John Cowan <[email protected]> No less / No more http://www.ccil.org/~cowan All things / To do With sparks / Galore --Douglas Hofstadter _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
