> > 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.
> >
> 
> Ok, forget about the pure GPL (v2 or v3) in the discussion as 
> it becomes political (I admit I am partially to blame by 
> raising the topics).
> 
> What is the better option to fulfill Wouter's requirement? 
> BSD is not. Pure GPL is not. Maybe eCOS style is better 
> (GPL/LGPL with some exceptional clauses). Personally I think 
> dual license (GPL with some exceptional clauses+ Commercial) 
> is nice to both the author, the community and the corporate.

With eCOS style (GPL + free use in binaries) there is IMHO little need
for an additional commercial license.

One thing is a bit blurry to me: GPL V3 has a non-sticky clause: if your
get GPLed code with an additional clause you are free to remove that
clause. But if that additional clause is of the form "you are granted a
GPL license to this code provided that ..." then this additional clause
places itself more or less above the GPL V3. Fodder for lawyers, I am
afraid.

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