> My wife is a lawyer and I went to law school with her (sorta...)
> Anyway I have asked her earlier (in the contents of the whole
> Qt-KDE-GPL-RedHat mess). She pretty much said the exact same thing
> than you Rick.
I hope so :) I'd hate to think it changed since I went :)
>She wouldnt offer legal council even if I volunteered doing dishes
>for a week..
smart woman . . .
btw, since my licenses are inactive to save $700/year in fees, my
suggestion isn't legal advice, etc.
> Anyway I think that you proposal sounds very reasonable even for
> non lawyers. A discussion with OSS enthusiasts will certainly follow
> but someone should really clarify this issue once and for all
> (of course there is no such thing in the law).
I think it's only the hardcore church-of-emacs and "GPL uber alles"
crowd that will object, but they object to anything but pure GPL . . .
The big question is if this accurately reflects what we've done. As
far as I can tell, it reflects everyone's understanding of the current
& past state of lyx.
We might want to put in a line or two about a desire to change
licenses, and that sending a patch will be construed as permission to
change to any other free license which requires redistribution of
source code (ie, not the "go private" option of *BSD), but with the
clarification, I'm not sure that we have any GPL issues left--it is
clear that required linking is allowed, and the rejection of terms
avoids any implicit endorsement of the fanatical wing of the FSF.
Or did we have other issues?
rick
--
