OSLib license

[philip at philipnet.com]

Quoting Jonathan Coxhead <jonathan at doves.demon.co.uk>:

[changing OSLib licence?]

>    Well, any suggestions for improvement can be passed over this   
> list, and I'm
> sure they can be incorporated into the official licence. At the moment, the
> copyright is notionally mine. I think I heard somewhere that if you use
> GPL/LGPL, you have to assign copyright to the FSF. I'd be quite happy to do
> that, if they have a licence that doesn't burden users in a way that would
> discourage them from using the product.

Assigning copyright to the FSF is only required /if/ you want the FSF  
to protect the code. I doubt that's any use for us.

>    Or maybe one of the other licences that have proliferated over   
> recent years
> would be better? Artistic? BSD? Other ideas?

I occasionally look into licences and -so far- I haven't found a  
licence that 'encourages' improvements to be fed back into the library  
whilst giving people free reign on what products to include the  
library with.

If the licence is to stay as it stands, then all the files need to be  
updated to clarify that the code is under a modified GPL v1 licence  
and to seek further details in the licence file include with the  
distribution.

If you want to change the licence to let people do what they want with  
the code then the MIT licence is (in my opinion) the most suitable.

Regards.

Phil L.


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.