Re: Compatibility metalicense, huh?
Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 10:10:36PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Am I making myself clear? Probably not...
> It's an interesting idea, although I am scared by the flexibility. What can
> guarantee me that every derived license I allow is within my wish.
I imagined that the license would simply enumerate (possibly by
reference to a canonical license phrase list somewhere on the web)
the choices derived licenses had in each case.
As long as the categories are reasonably orthogonal this should
provide easy control over what one allows and disallows.
> But then, I don't think I would use anything but GPL + colicense if
> necessary for my own stuff.
It would only be an interesting idea if GPL version 3 was phased so it
was automatically one of the possible derived licenses allowed.
Then again, RMS probably wouldn't agree to a scheme that allowed
library authors to feel cooperative without putting in as much
protection as the GPL does.
--
Henning Makholm
Reply to: