24 Jan
2008
24 Jan
'08
10:46 a.m.
Am Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2008 13:39:20 schrieb Arnold Krille:
Yes, there is a very valid reason for you not to do
so: Adding something to
the gpl _and_ still calling it the gpl is not valid. So in fact LS has _no_
valid license. The only thing protecting it is the natural(?) copyrights of
the ones who invented it.
No one else is allowed to copy or distribute (or maybe even use) it without
there explicit statement. You can give that statement by publishing it
under a certain license but the gpl itself states that making additions to
it and still call it gpl is invalidating it...
So please(!) LS-devs, give LS a valid license, be it open source or not,
free as in defined-by-the-fsf or not.
Sorry for the ones who heard this thousand times before, but once again:
Arnold, a license is just a declaration of intention. As a copyright holder
you can define any license terms you want, as long as it doesn't break
anyones rights or laws. And we do not break the FSF's rights, nor any law I
know of (at least not in our part of the world). In fact we've been in touch
with various people from the FSF for several months, but haven't found a
better solution so far.
I do agree though that the license wording is suboptimal, and we're certainly
fixing it on the mid / long term, but as said, we don't have a better
solution yet and the current license terms are valid.
CU
Christian