[exprla-devel] Re: [XPL] Licenses, Part 2....

[reid_spencer <ras...@re...>]

--- In xpl-dev@y..., Jonathan Burns <saski@w...> wrote:
Michael Lauzon wrote:

> Here is a link to licenses of the GNU website:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html

I've just been over to  W3C's Legal Page , and their terms and 
conditions

are compatible with the GPL. Which counts for a lot, since we'll be 
taking

authority from some of their specifications.

Essentially the GPL obliges us to make available any source we write

which is implemented in our documents and which we mean to be used 
freely;

also to include a statement that the sources is covered by the GPL, 
which

means we require copiers to make their modified source available as 
well.

And we ought to include a copy of the GPL itself as a header.

And make the usual disclaimer as to liabilities.

Finally, we are obliged not to include any non-free sources as an

integral part of out own.

This all sounds acceptable to me. What we could do, if parts of our

source showed up in privately-owned code, is not altogether clear.

Ultimately, we could and should sue. In such a case, we'd have just

about the whole open-source world on our side.

Any other thoughts?

--

Jonathan Burns; saski@w...
--- End forwarded message ---