gaw zay wrote: > I thought Wine used the MIT license? Peter Jay Salzman wrote: > winehq says: "The licensing terms are similar to X11.", > and X11 uses the MIT license. so, yeah. i think you're right. > otoh, i think BSD is similar the MIT/wine licenses.
Doh! My mistake. Sorry. I think the MIT/X11 license is very similar to BSD, except it requires an added copyright notice/acknowledgement. I know certain BSD licenses have the similar, and the GNU/FSF labels it as "GPL-compatible, but not totally free" (or similar). > GPL is the odd man out. i can understand (but don't agree > with!) microsoft's statement that the GPL is a virial > license. Microsoft wants to free software it can assimilate. It also wants to fool you into thinking that you have to "care differently" about GPL than any other license, free or commercial. The fact of the matter is *ALL*LICENSES*ARE*VIRAL*! If you are a developer, you must pay _strict_legal_attention_ to what code you use. God forbid you use GPL, what do you think happens if you use Microsoft licensed code? Those with the best lawyers win, and Microsoft isn't afraid to open litigation. In fact, the FSF/GNU guys "restrain" their lawyers and really try to work things out. I don't want to open this debate any further, but understand GPL is actually an idea license _assuming_ you use it right. E.g., you can easily dual-license software GPL/commercial, so you can build marketshare with the community, but still charge commercial developers who want to build products around it. *BUT* you have to "weild" it right. Examples ... - Cygnus does this with the GCC/GNU Toolchain, making non-[L]GPL versions of its libraries for either Windows, or non-GNU platforms. - FSMLabs combines its dual-licensed RT/Linux software with a dual-licensed open/commercial patent on its implementation, so even non-Linux RT implementations are subject to royalties (e.g., _both_ RT extensions for Windows NT have licensed FSMLabs' patent). - And unlike most Linux libraries which are LGPL, TrollTech's Qt is pure GPL. TrollTech requires commercial software to license its staticly linkable Qt version that doesn't require KDE (nor UNIX, running on Windows/Mac as well). There are other examples. Some "vendor OSS licenses" have some interesting clauses, that are _worse_ from an "IP standpoint" than the GPL! Examples: - Requiring you to _always_ publish the source code of _any_ modification, even if you don't redistribute the modification. The GPL states that you only have to publish the source code if you release the modification, but not if you just use it internally. - Give up your copyrights and/or [non-]exclusively sign over your copyright to the original developer _if_ you modify the original. That right there is viral! If I modify something that is GPL, but also "dual-licensed" by a vendor, that vendor must "negotiate" with me to use my copyrighted changes in their non-GPL version. Not so with Apple, IBM, Netscape, Sun and many other licenses -- they can just take your additions commercial (although most _also_ stay public as well)! And there are countless other "issues" with some of the "non-GPL compatible" ones. -- Bryan -- Bryan J. Smith, Engineer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AbsoluteValue Systems, Inc. http://www.linux-wlan.org SmithConcepts, Inc. http://www.SmithConcepts.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-msdos" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
