>On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 09:40:46PM +0100, Dave Hooper wrote: > >> distributable whilst maintaining some kind of 'protection' over SAASound - >> in that I will not allow other people to release versions of SAASound >> without my permission and say-so over the new code unless I decide to change >> my mind over this in the future or unless it is made clear that the version >> of SAASound created by this third party has nothing to do with me - and that > >You *may* have a problem there, because I suspect that set of restrictions >isn't compatible with the GPL.
As I understand it though, his code isn't based on anything GPL'd, so he should be able to put whatever restrictions on it as he likes -- PROVIDED THAT it is possible to compile WinCoupe without sound support. (For anyone else following this, my reasoning is because WinCoupe *must* go under GPL because it is derived from SimCoupe which is GPL, but you're not allowed to release GPL code which relies on anything which is under a non-compatible license.) > You could take a look at some of the other >licenses around (SCSL, trolltech, X, BSD etc.) and see which is closest, or >just go with BSD or something. I'd favour the latter, but then I would. :-) Personally I'd start with BSD as a base, and then rewrite or reword whatever sections were appropriate. I don't have a copy of the BSD license to hand, but this sounds like a reasonable progression from what most people refer to as the advertising clause. Andrew -- -- Andrew Collier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- Life is -- http://mnemotech.ucam.org -- somewhat dissimilar -- Part 3 Materials Science, Cambridge -- to a bad analogy --
