On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 08:46:09PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> Is "GPLv2 or later" ok to you? (that's to ensure inclusion in upstream code)
No license choice can "ensure" inclusion, it can merely "allow" for
inclusion. OK, I am nitpicking.
More importantly, "GPLv2 or later" is not sufficient to allow for
inclusion upstream, as I explained in my posting:
Maybe I did not express it clearly enough...
By "dual-license" I definitely did not mean just the "v2 or later" thing,
I meant "GPL or something more permissive at the user's discretion" -
that is, besides GPL there has to be a more permissive license allowing
for proprietary derived works.
In a follow-up posting, I mentioned that I'd be happy if all
contributions, short of those placed in the public domain (which I like
best), were licensed under the micro-license found in nonstd.c:
* This software may be modified, redistributed, and used for any purpose,
* so long as its origin is acknowledged.
For the nitpickers, let's extend the suggested license to:
This software may be redistributed and used in source and binary forms,
with or without modification, so long as its origin is acknowledged.
This suggested wording resembles that of 2-clause BSD more closely, yet
it replaces the 2 clauses requiring specific attribution with the more
premissive wording from Matthew Kwan's micro-license.
Matthew Kwan's original wording, quoted above, has the same issue that
the ISC license does, where one might claim that redistribution of
modified versions was not permitted. See:
Pkg-john-devel mailing list