| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Sunday 22 February 2004 09:33 pm, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 5 |
> Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying people _shouldn't_ use a license like |
| 6 |
> the BSD-style licenses that permit all kinds of additional restrictions, |
| 7 |
> if that's the license they want to use. But we're talking here about |
| 8 |
> existing packages whose authors specifically picked the GPL who |
| 9 |
> presumably do not want their license violated. |
| 10 |
However, I don't think a GPL+attribution license exists. I'm sure many authors |
| 11 |
of software licensed under the GPL wouldn't mind an optional attribution |
| 12 |
clause and wouldn't mind using such a license for their projects. There are |
| 13 |
probably cases where the GPL is used simply because it is the most popular |
| 14 |
license for free software. |
| 15 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 16 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
iD8DBQFAOW+TZl/BHdU+lYMRAv5xAJ9YFZLgsU4CGfSQqQ12iUtWYFUnAQCfcoVJ |
| 19 |
ZXrg+sNJJ3XAABt0f2cCPUU= |
| 20 |
=WV4y |
| 21 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives