On 4/5/07, Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Timothy Normand Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not going to do anything further on it unless more people come to
> some conclusion on it different from how they decided before.
I was thinking about this lately, and I realized that I didn't
articulate my actual concern about the license. If the work is dual
licensed under the GPL, then it should be ok for someone who is
reusing the code to completely replace the dual license blurb with a
generic GPL license blurb (leaving the copyright notice in, of
course), whereas those two clauses seem to imply that that's not ok to
do. That's why I originally said that clause 7 should go to the
start, and everything else should get moved out, because if someone
relicenses the work under the GPL, they only really need to keep the
definitions and the GPL blurb in.
Well, of course, the intent is that people can replace the license, at
will, with one that is pure GPL. What's not okay is to do that and
continue to use OGP or Traversal trademarks.
Another thing we need is to have an attorney look at this.
I'll take a look at this soon.
--
Timothy Normand Miller
http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~millerti
Open Graphics Project
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
