Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The OSSAL is the most similar to the BSD license. This is a
derivative license in that it is modeled after the BSD license,
however it prevents code or objects from being used by GPL'ed bits.
The reason for these addions being that as a language
For your purpose, the BSD or the MIT license is better
than the OSSAL, which impose on businesses the burden
of not being able to use GPL code for their purposes.
Hopefully you will not force the FreeBSD project to
adapt your license.
--- Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DISCUSSION:
Ian Lance Taylor scripsit:
That said, I don't see any reason why your license does not conform to
the OSD.
I agree.
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
should, in good faith, display the following acknowledgment:
This product includes
The OSSAL is the most similar to the BSD license. This is a
derivative license in that it is modeled after the BSD license,
however it prevents code or objects from being used by GPL'ed
bits. The reason for these addions being that as a language
author, I don't want any of the modules
4. Redistributions of source code may not be used in conjunction
with any software license that requires disclosure of source
code (ex: the GNU Public License, hereafter known as the GPL).
This is also not entirely clear. Perhaps you mean something like
``this
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not concerned about freedom of development to users/consumers
(which is the aim of the GPL), I'm concerned about the freedom of
development for businesses.
Your terminology is strange to somebody like me, who worked for many
years at a business
6 matches
Mail list logo
