> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Fox > Sent: 03 September 2008 20:02 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Sean's library work and licence questions > > What about the BSD license? Seems similar to MIT except it > adds a clause like: > Neither the name of NetSurf nor the names of its contributors > may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this > software without specific prior written permission. > > I'm OK with a less restrictive license, but after reading up > on a few of them I think I'd feel more comfortable knowing > Company XYZ can't use the NetSurf name or my name in > promotion unless they have permission to do so. What do you > guys think?
My theory is simply that I originally wrote the code for the benefit of everyone. I don't particularly like the GPL as it restricts the usage of the code in certain circumstances and thus it means that someone may need to pointlessly re-implement something. Endorsement of products, or the use of the NetSurf name, requires the relevant permissions irrespective of the licence of the libraries. Given that I'm not really bothered if the key selling point of UberApplication 2.0 is that it "Now uses Richard and Sean's GIF and BMP decoders!" then I'm perfectly happy. Heck, if I moved to Bizaro-World such a claim-to-fame might even get me a beer. Basically, anything I've done for NetSurf (with the exception of the Tinct module as used on RISC OS which was never constrained by the GPL) can be re-licenced as often as is required with the only proviso being that the new licence is less restrictive than the previous one. R. -- Richard Wilson
