On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 05:32:27PM -0600, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote: ... > > 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. >
Note, that in many legal systems now in existence, copyright on computer programs actually does cover the right to execute the code. Which probably means that a future version of the GPL (GPL3) might need to actually grant that right explicitly too. Just my 2cents of guesswork, IANAL. > 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. > Mr. Bloom has previously stated (in this thread), that his intent is to grant additional rights, such that his library can be used in free software which is not under the GPL. Maybe the LGPL can do it, if Mr. Bloom does not consider it too permissive. -- This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings, do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue. Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.
