Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 08:52:31PM -0500, John Weiss wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 12:06:02PM +0000, Angus Leeming wrote: >> > Dear all, >> : >> : >> > In light of all this, I asking whether I can have your permission to >> > add your names to http://www.lyx.org/blanket-permission.txt: >> >> No. >> >> I have lately grown to detest FSF-Fundamentalism, and now refuse to >> GPL or LGPL anything of mine. But even beforehand, I preferred to >> release all of my code and documentation under the Artistic License. >> Any contributions I made to LyX (early reLyX, documentation) should >> therefore be considered as originally under the Artistic License. >> >> Make of that what you will. > > Hmmm... Okay... > > I'm not an FSFanatic, and I respect your choice to go with the Artistic > license. > > From a practical point of view, I don't think it changes much. > The Artistic License is more permissive than the GPL or LGPL, so anything > that can be done with a product under GPL is permitted under the Artistic > license. > > My conclusion is that the two licenses can co-exist (a few files under > the Artistic license and the rest under the GPL). > > Anyone have another opinion they want to share on this?
I think that you're correct. The purpose of this request for permission to change the licence was twofold: 1. To make it clear legally what licence code contributed to LyX was licenced under. 2. To make the licence more restrictive than the published "GPL + XForms exception". So I'll add a section to blanket-permissions.txt The following people hereby grant permission to licence their contributions to LyX under the Artistic Licence http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php John Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> See lyx-devel list message entitled "The LyX licence" of 23 February 2005. -- Angus
