On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:38:26AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > section 2 (which requires you to distribute the program as whole > > under the GPL), and then tacks on an attribution clause and what is > > basically a patch clause. He should throw out the GPL here all > > together, and pick or write a license that better fits what he > > intends. > > Hello! What did I ask in the previous mail? Exactly this. > The author would like to change the license to another free one. But > WHICH license would meet his expectations?
What are his expectations? He could use the Artistic license, BSD, MozPL, or LGPL, or any one of a number of licenses. He could simply say "GPL with the exception that you can link to FOO library." > > Unless I've signed a license to that effect, in most places, > > I believe I do have the right to reverse engineer those > > control sequences. > > IMHO not if these was forbidden explicitely. It's not in the power of a copyright license to forbid me from reverse engineering something. That would take a shrinkwrap license. > But I am not a lawyer and I > don't want to get one, so I need a mixed license that forbidds this in > any case. A free software license can't forbid reverse engineering. Don't combine the licenses; use one license for the free software and one license for the non-free software. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg
