Richard Tobin wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> So what wording woud you suggest authors use in their licences if they > >> wish to prevent their work from being used in this way? > > > >What do you mean? > > I have some software. Someone else wants to use my software in their > project, and distribute the result. I don't want them to be able to > do that unless they distribute their own source and allow others to > redistribute it. > > You claim that the GPL doesn't have that effect, because the other > project is merely a "compilation". So how should I word my licence > to achieve the effect I desire?
You may try to state that under your contract "mere aggregation" (in GNU speak) triggers the same obligations as derivative work and that it encompassing all works in a compilation/aggregation. Then you just hope that it can withstand challenges under doctrines of preemption, misuse, and whatnot (such as lack of contract formation and distribution under 17 USC 109/117 instead, etc.). regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
