[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Ross Bearman wrote: > > Several other GPL'd projects do the same and I've never > seen it written anywhere in what I've read of the GPL, or it's FAQ, > that you can't define other restrictions as long as they don't > contradict those of the GPL." You can, but you have to remove the word "GNU" to make it clear that the license is no longer the GNU GPL license. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL Mozilla distribute code under a tri-license, so you can choose the GNU GPL. Chromium licensing details here... http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html I'll just wait for the free version to appear in Debian (if it doesn't the licence isn't free enough), but my initial impression is that there is nothing there to frighten the horses. LZMA I hadn't come across, but the "special exception" is more relaxed than other acceptably free licenses that the same code is available under. Even WTL is available under dual licences, although Google refer to the Microsoft Permissive License, which Wikipedia claims is the old name for the Microsoft Public License, so possibly something odd there. The EULA is irrelevant if the source code is distributed under a more liberal license, just compile your own (or get a DD to do it for you ;-). -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html