Dear Wei Dai: Great! Thank you!
On the Twisted issue ticket, Glyph made a good suggestion: """ Just one note (since I'm not on that mailing list): there's really no need to put the "only copyrighted as a compilation" thing into the license itself. It can be an informative note somewhere else in the code or on the website, since the license by definition only applies to the copyrighted material. (Putting anything into the license itself can have weird knock-on effects. For example, let's say someone wants to release a crypto++ enhancement that is open source, but cannot be not public domain for some reason. Now, their enhancement is copyrighted as an individual file and as a compilation. But one of the requirements of the license is to distribute the license verbatim. Can they do that? One thing is for sure: they'll have to ask a lawyer.) """ -- Glyph http://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/4633#comment:27 A technique that I've used to make things easier for downstream users is to make software available under multiple licences, at the user's discretion. This "multi-licensing" technique was used prominently by Mozilla a few years back, when they started distributing Firefox under your choice of GPL, LGPL, or Mozilla Public Licence. For example, you could publish Crypto++ under the receipient's choice of MIT, Boost, or the original Crypto++ licence. This is redundant and meaningless for most people, because all of those licences give them more or less the same options, but it might help if some open source project A (or some lawyers in Company A) require all licences to be Boost and some open source project B (or some lawyers in Company B) require all licences to be MIT. Regards, Zooko -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" Google Group. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected]. More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at http://www.cryptopp.com.
