Subject: Releasing under OS, what License?
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:20:45 +0900

>>>>> "Adam" == Adam Theo <adamtheo@theoretic.com> writes:

    Adam> i do not like the 'forcing' natuire of the GPL.

Please to call it "prohibitive".  GPL doesn't "force" you to GPL
_your_ software, it prohbits you from using the GPL'd software if you
don't.  Carrot, not stick.

That said, I think everybody understands where you're coming from even
if they don't agree.  For example, rms acknolwedges that in that sense
MIT is "freer" than GPL, but argues powerfully that that's
shortsighted.

    Adam> i do not like the 'proprietary allowances' of the BSD and
    Adam> MIT styles.

Yep.

Me, I like the LESSER GPL.  Others can link any code to software
licensed under it, without restriction.  Only if they modify the code
itself do their modifications fall under LGPL.  But completely
separate modules that only call the exported API do not.

Sounds like what you want.  Give it a look!

	 http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.html

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."