Look for Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/

Also take a look at MySQL licencing, they have GPL and private licencing
(if I got it right).

Hope this helps.
Francisco


Byron A Jeff wrote:

>On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 05:30:35PM -0800, William Chops Westfield wrote:
>
>
>>On Sunday, Jan 25, 2004, at 05:12 US/Pacific, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>What I am looking for is something that permits every use of my
>>>libraries when in compiled form, and is roughly equal to GPL/LGPL for
>>>the source form. Note that I want this for Jal libraries, and Jal does
>>>not have an object format to confuse the distinction.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>What do you want to have happen if people modify the library source?
>>That seems to be one of the sticky points of (L)GPL/etc.
>>
>>
>
>Actually that isn't Wouter's problem. The problem is that the JAL
>infrastructure doesn't have a mechanism for the separation of the library
>code vs. the applications code. The LGPL dictates that users have the right
>to update their libraries. In a DLL style situation that's easy enough because
>the library is in a separate package. But JAL must compile the library in.
>Because of this the only way to meet the library update requirement is to have
>the source code of the application so that the application can be recompiled
>with the new library. Thus defeating the primary difference between the LGPL
>and the GPL.
>
>Wouter is correct. There currently isn't a license that allows for what he
>wants. He needs an even weaker LGPL that drops the library update clause.
>
>But I can see where the FSF is coming from too because once you weaken that
>requirement, then the end user is locked into the binary offered with no
>ability to update the supposedly free library.
>
>One tough nut to crack.
>
>BAJ
>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu