>You don't like GPL, so GPL-only is out. I don't think BSD-only is an
>option if even Sword interfaces are included in the code. I think that
>makes it a derivative work and therefore obliges GPL licensing. If you
>put all Sword interfaces inside of IFDEFs and make a short statement
>about thei
I think your best suggestion so far has been BSD/GPL dual-licensing,
along with a short disclaimer explaining that GPL is obligatory if Sword
code is included.
You don't like GPL, so GPL-only is out. I don't think BSD-only is an
option if even Sword interfaces are included in the code. I think
How would the following be the beginnings of the files, to ensure compliance?
I always thought this would just be equivalent to a pure BSD license (as
explained in my other message) but I guess not... It is a lot longer,
unfortunately.
Would a BSD license with a short clarification that the G
> I think that people should not only obey the letter of the licenses but also
> respect the will of the licensors.
Couldn't agree more. Even if the licensors use a proprietary license. In
that regard I don't agree at all with RMS and the FSF (who believe
proprietary software is unethical and
On Thursday 24 March 2005 01:55, Jeremy Erickson wrote:
> I have not added any code to use Sword yet, and the Qt use complies with
> the QPL. Do I need to change something? I don't want to do anything
> illegal...
Here is the starter of the previous discussion (sort the messages by thread
and
"So if you want to write a non-copylefted application, release it under
the X11 license, and link it with a GPL-covered library, that is
allowed. The linked executable would be covered by the GPL, of
course, but the app source code would be covered by the X11 license
alone."
-Richard Stallman, all
