Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?

Preben Randhol wrote:
I don't like it. I contributed to a GMGPL project not a pure GPL
project.

Anyway, what I will do for the future is to use any license other than
GPL. Now, I guess I need to spend a bit time to find a license
compatible with GPL but without the viral part. I guess the BSD license is
one candidate.

Well, if you want to stop people from taking your code and slapping the GPL on it, then a BSD-style license is a bad choice.

If I understand you right, you want a license that allows compiling together with GPL code to form a GPL executable, but forbids changing the license of the source code to GPL. I don't know of such a license, and I think it could be difficult to write one. You'd have to differentiate between two different kinds of derivative work.

--
Björn Persson PGP key A88682FD
omb jor ers @sv ge.
r o.b n.p son eri nu
.

Relevant Pages

  • [PATCH] change libata license from OSL+GPL to GPL
    ... - changes license of all code from OSL+GPL to plain ole GPL ... indicate your decision by deleting the provisions above and ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Copyleft and embedded Forth
    ... rights of another. ... Developer may do with p.d. ... Use isn't an issue with any free software license. ... You have to choose to use GPL software. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: module license taints kernel.
    ... you can't use a license ... At least this is how the GPL is ... you cannot use a license to turn actions that do not violate ... copyright law, not as defined in the GPL or in the common sense ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.system)
  • Re: GPL compliance
    ... Your main intent seems to be to spread FUD about the GPL and because ... every piece of code that is packaged has a copyright file. ... worrying only about the Canonical license for the whole CD and I was ... what does Red Hat have to do with it? ...
    (Ubuntu)