Subject: Copyright & Licensing

From: [email-masked] (Lele Gaifax)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 13:35:48 +0100 (MDT)

Hi,
did you consider the Library version of the GPL?
It is similar to what you stated. For example it allows you to distribuite
binary versions of the library...
>(2)  Licensing issues need to be dealt with.  I'm no lawyer
>        by any stretch of the imagination, and we need to
>        put a real license on the kit, at the very least
>        to make sure that no one is held liable for vicious
>        bugs... I do NOT want the GNU license, since using
>        it would cause several people (primarily commercial
>        software developers) to shy away from the kit, which
>        is not what I want.  The spirit of the license, IMHO,
>        should be that of free use.  The details that need
>        to be decided upon are:
bye, lele.
-- 
Lele Gaifax - [email-masked]
..calling Emacs convenient, of course, is like calling oxygen useful
					Rens Troost

---

From: [email-masked] (Reuven M. Lerner)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 07:56:43 -0400 (EDT)

>>>>> On Wed, 15 Sep 1993 13:35:48 +0100 (MDT),
>>>>> [email-masked] (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