David, MPL (Mozilla Public License) seems to be DFSG compliant. At least there are some programs under this license already in Debian.
However in this page: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses The FSF arguments why the MPL is incompatible with the GPL, which means that you cannot do a GPL application and put a "-lmusclecard" in it's Makfile, without violating the GPL. The optiomal solution could be Dual licensing as they explain in the second paragraph: > However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or parts > of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If part of a program > allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any other GPL-compatible > license as an alternate choice, that part of the program has a GPL-compatible > license This way the user can choose wich license to comply: the GPL (and I don't think that pcsc-lite hijakers would want to comply with this, as they software would need to be open too) or the MPL wich gives you all the protection you want and the users all the rights to mix with non-free modules. An obvious example of a program under this terms is the Mozilla browser (althought I think they are jet moving to MPL/LGPL/GPL). You cans see details at: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.htm If you finally choose this licensing style for musclecard, I would even suggest you to change the pcsc-lite and your other old-BSD lincesed modules, if you like. Carlos. --- David Corcoran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > Mistake, I meant the Mozilla license not the Perl license. I want to: > > -require derivative of it's source code base be made public - > I may be more strict on this one, there seem to be some companies > which are supposed to have somethings public but find good ways to > hide them. > > -retain copyright of each and every document, and source file > > -have the ability to change the license > > -allow mixing open/closed source > > http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/gpl.pdf > > is quite a good paper on open source licensing from a legal view. > The Mozilla license seems to give me all I want and also the community. > > Again, I want a community agreement before I proceed to re-license, thus > the reason for the first license. I believe Mozilla suits most of the > needs - what do you think ? > > Dave > > *************************************************************** > Unix Smart Card Developers - M.U.S.C.L.E. > (Movement for the Use of Smart Cards in a Linux Environment) > http://www.linuxnet.com/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > unsubscribe sclinux > *************************************************************** __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com *************************************************************** Unix Smart Card Developers - M.U.S.C.L.E. (Movement for the Use of Smart Cards in a Linux Environment) http://www.linuxnet.com/ To unsubscribe send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe sclinux ***************************************************************
