On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 12:33 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] via RT wrote: > Would this license be GPL compatible? I would think so, but I'm not > sure:
Dear Dave, The license is tersely worded, leaving a lot of questions open to the licensor's intent. Without more information in that regard, we suggest you err on the side of caution and consider the license to be GPL-incompatible. In particular, there are two main points of concern: * Section 2 is very open-ended. The GNU GPL requires that you maintain accurate copyright notices; if that would also fulfill your requirements under section 2 of this license, then the clause is GPL-compatible. If not, the question becomes harder to answer. If this clause requires you to do anything that is not required by the GPL, or prohibits you from doing something permitted by the GPL, then it is not GPL-compatible. * Section 3 implies that you have the right to modify the software, but it's never explicitly provided. Given that copyright law forbids modification without a license, we expect free software licenses to expressly provide that right. If this license does not allow you to create modified versions, or distribute those modifications, is not a free software license, let alone a GPL-compatible one. If you can ask the licensor to clarify their intent regarding these issues, you should be able to tell whether or not the license is GPL-compatible. It may also be a good idea to suggest that they consider releasing their software under a different, well-established license. The modified BSD license (http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5) looks like a good match for their current license. Best regards, -- Brett Smith Free Software Foundation Licensing Team
