Subject: [Fwd: Re: Including open source within a larger package]
From: Pablo Barrera Franco <pablo@barrerafranco.com.ar>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:14:31 -0300

-----Mensaje reenviado-----
> From: Pablo Barrera Franco <pablo@barrerafranco.com.ar>
> To: Chris F Clark <cfc@TheWorld.com>
> Subject: Re: Including open source within a larger package
> Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:06:05 -0300
> 
> > Russ Nelson replied:
> >  There are dozens and dozens of other licenses which are
> > > more appropriate to your situation.  
> 
> It's true but, couldwe  be more useful give some guide, dont you think?
> :-)
> 
> > You don't need a new license.
> > 
> 
> Hi Chris!
> 
> Around my poor english ;-), I understand that u need some kind of new
> license "GPL Like", giving and preserving the rights expressed ond GPL
> but not GPL indeed.
> 
> > 
> > 1) That the source code be "open source".  
> 
> sounds perfect...
> 
> > 
> > 2) That the resulting code cannot be "privatized" (i.e. that
> >    derivative works must also be "open source"--the so called "viral"
> >    property of the license). 
> 
> exactly, giving the same rights to the user. In spite of this, the gpl
> viral criteria doesnt take u off from the "intransferible right" of the
> "moral creation", so you can follow the MySQL concept if u think that
> could be an option. For example, MySQL brings GPL licence who will
> released code improvements (patches), "if only", keeps the GPL license
> on the "next man on the production chain".But if you want to create
> improvements, without code releasing, you must pay, such a kind o
> "binary".This situation is happening in my country (argentina) with
> Mysql.Probably this model could help u. Lets go on!
> 
> 
> >   Since a large body of works
> >    are already under the GPL, this clearly makes it acceptable for
> >    this part.
> > 
> theres no problem to use GPL; if you feel comfortable, why not use it...
> 
> 
> >   It is not as important that others be able to redistribute the
> >    "shareware" parts, but it is strongly preferrable.  If some
> >    [re]distributor happens to include my package as part of something
> >    that they are [re]distrbuting, I would like that to be clearly
> >    permitted.
> 
> think about eric says once: release the code rapidly, anyway you must do
> it...; )
> 
> > 
> > Any license that can satisfy all 4 points is acceptable to me. I am
> > willing to listen to any recommendations as to what license I should
> > use to satisfy the 4 concerns.
> 
> 
> GPL could be the more simple and usefull option, anyway I dont consider 
> that "create a new license" could be a bad idea, OSI, has a comitee to
> analize the new OSI licences, could be an interesenting projecto why
> not?
> 
> Im just new in this mailing list, i am working on my country to develope
> FOSS technologies with OSi community (Specially in our country doesnt
> exist a really OSI comm, exists Free Software Comm, so we are creating
> the OSI with very hard work!)
> 
> Greetings from a Rainy Buenos Aires Day.
> --
> Pablo Barrera Franco
>