> > What I (in non-license speak) want is: distributed source 
> is subject 
> > to the same license, GPL V3 would be OK, application is 
> not. As yet I 
> > have not found a license that fully does this. In 
> particular the more 
> > free licenses (BSD and the like) do not require that source, when 
> > distributed, is distributed under the same license.
> >
> >
> I believe the GPL already satisfies that desire.  The GPL 
> requires that you make GPLd code available to the public, and 
> if you modify GPLd code, those modifications are made 
> public(you received free, so you shall give back freely sort 
> of idea.).  Here's the thing:  If you rewrote the scheduler 
> for the kernel, that would be GPL.  If you wrote an ap that 
> wasn't internal within the kernel, it could be whatever 
> license you wish.

I want this for monolithical applications (think of a 1k program for a
PIC). No kernel - application distinction. No options to load modified
software.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist