Be sure every file contains a copyright notice. I don't have a problem with
a pointer to another file for licensing details, but you should assert your
copyright in every file.
> As regards Ftwalk,
> my interpretation of the GPL is that users who write the following
> types of code are not required to release that code under the GPL
Please re-word this entire section into a list, in the _active_voice_,
of permissions and policy statements on the various activities involved.
For example:
Scripts that you create to be interpreted by ftwalk language are not
derivative works of ftwalk. You may create such scripts and copyright
them, and you may apply any license to them.
New commands that you create to be accessed through ftwalk's
DSO interface are not derivative works of ftwalk. You may create
such commands and copyright them, and you may apply any license to
them.
New commands that you create to be linked directly into the ftwalk
executable are not derivative works of ftwalk. You may create
such commands and copyright them, and you may apply any license to
them.
By analyzing the GPL in the _passive_voice_, as you did in your draft,
you're leaving it up to interpretation and making it seem as if the FSF
is the boss regarding your own software. As the copyright holder you are
the boss and you decide how to enforce your license, even though you choose
to use the GPL as your license.
Thanks
Bruce
