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

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

--- In xpl-dev@y..., "Michael Lauzon" <ce940@f...> wrote:
I haven't had a chance to read through the GPL or GPL modified 
licenses, I wish someone would write a book with the GPL license.  
And, I do agree with JB, that if our source code does end up in 
software that companies are selling and making a profit, without 
giving the group royalties, we should sue.  :)

Michael


--- In xpl@e..., 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 ---