Subject: Re: Question about a specific license
From: John Cowan <>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 06:42:46 -0500 (EST)

James Michael DuPont scripsit:

> I want to be able to extend a BSD-Like licensed code into a better,
> more functional and GPLed module, where It cannot be "Hit and Run" (or
> was that "Embraced and Extend") by corporations with no scruples.
> For work done on my free time, I see no need to give away my code to
> highly paid corporations. If they want my work, they can pay me.

Oh, okay.  In that case, the important point is to carry the original
license along, but make it clear that it is not controlling for this
version of the code.  Personally, I would do something like this.
Just after the original copyright, insert:

	The following text appears here by the requirements of
	the licensor of an earlier version of this code.  It does
	NOT constitute the license for this version.  To see the
	license for this version, consult the file COPYING enclosed
	with your distribution, or etc. etc. etc.

The current Python license
( looks like this:
the operative license comes first (after a lengthy preamble explaining
what's going on) and then all the other dead licenses trail along behind.

John Cowan     
To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all.  There
are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language
that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful.
        --_The Hobbit_
license-discuss archive is at