Michael Beck (Team JEDI) wrote:
> The difference is that I don't like the "viral" aspect of GPL,
> i.e. as per MPL, you should be able to <use> my code or any
> derived code in your application without being forced to publish
> your own propriatory code.
But the problem is that the "viral" aspect of the GPL (as people call
it) is simply a consequence of the fact that the GPL specifies the terms
and conditions under which derivative works may be licensed, and in
doing so uses a definition of "derivative work" that you appear to agree
with (being basically whatever would be considered a derivative work
under copyright law). The only way to limit this aspect of the GPL would
be to put some limits on the type of derivative works to which the GPL
requirements would apply.
For example, this is basically what the LGPL does in the context of
libraries, by declaring a distinction between a "work based on the
library" (which must itself be licensed under LGPL terms) and a "work
that uses the library" (which need not be licensed under LGPL terms).
You appear to want to make an analogous distinction between a "work that
subclasses a class" and a "work that uses a class". So maybe what you
want is a variant of the LGPL with appropriate language to apply to the
OOP context. You might want to talk to a lawyer about drafting such a
license, to make sure that your intent is accurately reflected in the
actual license language.
Frank
--
Frank Hecker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
