Glenn Maynard wrote: > > As I already said, it's allowed to compile, but you might not be allowed > > to distribute the result. That's actually the main problem of the GPL I > > don't like. But the dual-licensing would solve that. > > Which is it, linkable-but-not-distributable or not-linkable-at-all? > (Question to this list, really; it's GPL's license that would place > these restrictions, not yours. Yours just trigger them.)
As far as I know, the GPL allows you to do anything, so long as it's on your own computer. Thus not giving anyone else a copy. If that isn't so than that would be a huge problem of the GPL. Actually, I think the law allows this, thus perhaps it doesn't even need to be mentioned in the license. Although that new law in the USA (millennium copyright act?) might cause trouble. > With your draft, wouldn't that force a person to choose the > GPL-compatible options (if distributing binaries linked against GPM)? > That is, wouldn't that forbid choosing 3a or 3b, since those would > prevent me, a user receiving the modified binaries linked against GPM, > from having some guaranteed way of getting the source to those > modifications? Yes, when you link with a GPL'ed piece of software, the GPL requires that it applies to the whole program, in addition to the original license, thus you must use the GPL-compatible part of the Vim license. That probably excludes 3a, since it requires sending source code to the maintainer, which the GPL doesn't want. 3b is distributing a modified Vim from 3a, thus is excluded as a result. > If dual-licensed, and linked against a GPL library, wouldn't that force a > person to choose the GPL option, for the same reason? Yes. That's not really much of a problem, if linking with a GPL library is all you do. However, if someone would write a nice addition to Vim and put the GPL on that addition, I can't include that code in Vim. I would have to ask the author for permission to include it in Vim under the Vim license, thus removing the GPL from that code. That's not really a big problem (I already accepted that), except that when using a dual license I expect it to happen quite often. Many people put the GPL on their work without realizing what the consequences are (more work for me!). > This would mean there's a hidden restriction in your current draft: if > the binary is linked against GPM (or any other libraries for other > systems under the GPL), you can't choose 3a or 3b. That's a result of the GPL, not of the Vim license. I have actually added a note about this (after the license, not as part of the license) which explains this. Just as a warning to prevent people from doing things which are not allowed. > I'm a bit confused here: > > d) When you have a modified Vim which includes changes, as mentioned After this comes "under c)". > What is a modified Vim that doens't include changes? (Do you mean a > diff? You don't require that a diff be used; more likely I have a whole > source tree that's been changed.) Isn't it clear that this is about further distributing a modified Vim as was created as mentioned under c)? I thought of putting a header for each of the alternatives, so that it's easier to understand the four alternatives, but this would make the license more vague. > 4) The contact information as mentioned under 3) must not be removed > or changed. > > Some room to fix errors would be nice. You require that contact information > valid for three years be provided, like the GPL; but mistakes happen and > houses get bulldozed. Some way to update contact information, as long as > it's your own, would help. (The GPL's wording is completely different; If the original author makes a correction, this can be considered to be a new change and a new modified version, which replaces the older one. If someone else notices that an address is wrong, he can add a remark like "this xxx address is invalid, it's now yyy". Just changing an address isn't a good idea, because you can't be 100% sure the new address is correct. Someone may move to Uganda and come back after a year, making the old address valid again. :-) > - You clearly mention in the distribution how to contact you within > at least three years after last distributing the modified Vim. > > I read this as "You clearly mention XXX within at least three years". > (Take a look at the GPL's wording; it's more precise.) Good point, I'll fix that. > > I have never heard from someone who said he would help developing Vim if > > it would use another license. > > Don't assume this means it hasn't happened. I have, in the past, tries > a program; gone "hey, this is neat--maybe I'll work on it", looked at > the license, saw that I didn't like it and simply said "oh well". True. I have done that with GPL-licensed softare many times. > Are there any other libraries that might have this problem? Vim can > link optionally against a ton of libraries. It's unusual for a library to go under the GPL. Mostly the LGPL is used, which was made for libraries. I don't know the reasons why the GPM library doesn't use the LGPL. It's annoying for people who link software with it. -- It's not hard to meet expenses, they're everywhere. /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
