Charles Bloom (via Drew Scott Daniels) wrote: > How about if I add this term at the top : > > 0. The software may be used or distributed according to the terms of > the GPL (GNU Public License) at the distributor's option. > If you do not wish to adhere to the terms of the GPL, you > may still use my code, but the following points apply. If > you do adhere to the terms of the GPL, you may ignore all > further points in this license.
"GPL" doesn't stand for "GNU Public License" GPL stands for "General Public License". The GNU GPL FAQ suggests making it clear one is talking about the GNU GPL before using the shorter term "GPL". See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesGPLStandFor in the GNU GPL FAQ. Also, one's copyright license may not set conditions on merely executing a program. The GNU GPL doesn't attempt to do this so Bloom's statement above could be confusing. What would be the problem with using an unmodified GNU GPL instead of this Bloom Public License? Looking at http://www.cbloom.com/bpl.txt I think Bloom would be better off using a license written by people who understand copyright law.
