home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Nebula 2
/
Nebula Two.iso
/
SourceCode
/
MiscKit1.7.1
/
MiscKitArchive.mbox
/
mbox
/
000018_reuven@the-tech.mit.edu_Wed Sep 15 05:58 MDT 1993.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1994-10-30
|
3KB
Received: from yvax2.byu.edu by maine.et.byu.edu; Wed, 15 Sep 93 05:58:52 -0600
Return-Path: <reuven@the-tech.mit.edu>
Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON by yvax.byu.edu (PMDF V4.2-13 #4169) id
<01H2YTDHYRO091X5C0@yvax.byu.edu>; Wed, 15 Sep 1993 05:56:52 MDT
Received: from alaska.et.byu.edu by yvax.byu.edu (PMDF V4.2-13 #4169) id
<01H2YTDFJ6EO934T4C@yvax.byu.edu>; Wed, 15 Sep 1993 05:56:49 MDT
Received: from yvax2.byu.edu by alaska.et.byu.edu; Wed, 15 Sep 93 05:58:36 -0600
Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON by yvax.byu.edu (PMDF V4.2-13 #4169) id
<01H2YTD7KHIO91X5C0@yvax.byu.edu>; Wed, 15 Sep 1993 05:56:38 MDT
Received: from the-tech.mit.edu by yvax.byu.edu (PMDF V4.2-13 #4169) id
<01H2YTD4SAXS934T4A@yvax.byu.edu>; Wed, 15 Sep 1993 05:56:35 MDT
Received: by the-tech.mit.edu (5.64/A/UX-3.00) id AA01970; Wed,
15 Sep 93 07:56:43 EDT
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 07:56:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: reuven@the-tech.mit.edu (Reuven M. Lerner)
Subject: Copyright & Licensing
In-Reply-To: <9309151135.AA11210@itnsg1.science.unitn.it>
To: lele@itnsg1.science.unitn.it
Cc: misckit@byu.edu
Reply-To: reuven@the-tech.mit.edu
Message-Id: <9309151156.AA01970@the-tech.mit.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: <9309151135.AA11210@itnsg1.science.unitn.it>
Status: R
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Sep 1993 13:35:48 +0100 (MDT),
>>>>> lele@itnsg1.science.unitn.it (Lele Gaifax) said:
Lele> did you consider the Library version of the GPL? It is
Lele> similar to what you stated. For example it allows you to
Lele> distribuite binary versions of the library...
I agree, the Library GNU Public License might be a good thing to think
about. It basically GPL's the library while allowing the library to
be linked into all types of software. In other words, only the
library to which the LGPL was applied is "infected" by the GNU
license. People wouldn't be allowed to turn the misckit into their
own proprietary library, but they would be allowed to use misckit
objects in their proprietary (as well as public-domain, GPL, and
other) software.
If we decide against this, and come up with our own license, I suggest
that we have a lawyer look it over. The Free Software Foundation
apparently found a number of problems with its original version of the
GPL, and worked with lawyers to draft a second version which is more
explicit and comprehensive. You're never going to be able to account
for all possible uses in a license, but asking someone who knows about
copyright law is probably a good idea.
Reuven