In article <79sbm8$8su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>On Feb 5, 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Martin) wrote: > >>> 3) There is no limitation on combining LyX source code with code >>> subject to any other license, provided that the LyX source remains >>> under this same license. > >>Looks very much like LGPL to me. I wonder why they haven't gone for >>it, instead of ammending GPL. > >It's not like we had a choice :) Very little (no?) thought went >into the choice of GPL for the original release, and the GPL is >not appropriated for the original authors' purposes. The problem >is that by releasing it, source & binary, with the encouragement >to port, compile, and distribute binaries, while inherently >linked to xforms, by their actions the authors blotted out large >sections of the GPL. > >The clarification isn't a change, or a choice to do something >different, but simply a clarification of what *is*. Without >the clarification, there was serious doubt that Debian would >distribute it, among other problems. > >One of the current topics is the feasibility of gathering permissions >from all of the authors of all of the significant patches to release >under a different license. > >The interesting way to do this is by paragraph 9, the FSF permission >to create newer versions to achieve the spirit of the license. I'm >pretty sure that right attaches to LyX in some way (*who* is Lyx >for this purpose remains a question), given the major modifications >caused by their actions, but I need to do some research that I >certainly don't have time for at the moment. But this doesn't >solve the aim of getting to a standard license rather than adding >another to the mix. > >All we really want (or at least >most of us) is for it to stay free. While I'm no opponent of the BSD >licenses, I believe that the "go private" option is a concern for >major applications like word processors and spreadsheets, and most >or all of us want the source to remain available. Even my one-line >Raptor license (do whatever you damn-well feel like under this code, >but the source & modifications stay under this license) pretty >much covers our desires. > >But the current license status isn't about what we want (we >*don't* like using a bastardized license), but what we're stuck with. >For the same reasons that we can't just switch to Artistic, or >Raptor, or whatever, we can't switch to plain GPL or LGPL. > >Since we're stuck, we included the clarification as just that: >a clarification, not a change. > > >>Particularly, it seems to me that `same >>license' is a bit ambiguous, since it might refer to the LyX-modified >>GPL or to the `any other license'. But then, I'm not a native English >>speaker, so I may be wrong. > >It means lyx's license :) I didn't think it was ambiguous when I >wrote it, but I can see how you can read it that way . . . put >it on the 1.0.1 list . . . > > > >>> Has this been discussed before? Is this a legitimate use of the GPL? > > > >>Yes, it is not more restrictive than GPL. >> >>-- >>Alexandre Oliva http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva aoliva@{acm.org} >>oliva@{dcc.unicamp.br,gnu.org,egcs.cygnus.com,samba.org} >>Universidade Estadual de Campinas, SP, Brasil > > >-- >These opinions will not be those of ISU until it pays my retainer. -- These opinions will not be those of ISU until it pays my retainer.
