On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 11:55:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > It sounds to me like what you really want to support are two licensing > schemes; one for people who publicize the source code of their changes > to Vim, and one for people who don't. You can do this and still be > totally DFSG-free, in spirit as well as letter. > > There are no restrictions on distributing unmodified copies of Vim. > You can also distibute parts of Vim, but this license text must always > be included. You are allowed to include executables that you made > from the unmodified Vim sources, plus your own usage examples and Vim > scripts. > > You are allowed to distribute a modified version of Vim when either of > the following conditions are met: > 1) You make your changes to the source code available to the general > public, or to those to whom you distributed modified versions of > Vim, with no restrictions on use, copying, modification, or > distribution; or > 2) You make your changes to the source code available to the Vim > maintainer at no charge, and grant him or her a perpertual license > to use, copy, modify and distribute your changes without > restriction. The preferred way to do this is by e-mail or by > uploading the files to a server and e-mailing the URL. If the > number of changes is small (e.g., a modified Makefile) e-mailing > the diffs will do. The e-mail address to be used is > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Would this kind of offer be GPL-compliant? It seems that one choice is and one choice isn't; I'm not sure what the implications are. Certainly, releasing a program under a GPL-compatible license doesn't give you free reign to use GPL libraries with it if you negotiate a different, incompatible license; I don't know how it works when there are compatible and incompatible options. -- Glenn Maynard
