Eitan Adler wrote:
On 24 December 2012 22:10, ldr ldr <[email protected]> wrote:
John: I'd be happy with proprietary forks, as long as the Attribution
provision would hold.
E.g.: if they sell it to other people, those other people still are
aware of my original project and have a link to it
Aren't you looking for something similar to the 4-BSD license?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#4-clause_license_.28original_.22BSD_License.22.29
And are you aware why no-one uses it any longer?
(It makes it difficult to create derivative works based on many
different components with advertising clauses. One of the main freedoms
in open source is to be able to use parts of someone else's code without
reproducing their whole application. A lot of people searching for
licences seem to think only in terms of their whole application, or
forks that only differ slightly.)
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
