Re: L-GPL or BSD license for MCF libraries ?

[email protected] wrote:
 > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 11:51:41PM +0200, Steve Lhomme wrote:
 >
 >>[email protected] wrote:
 >>Yeah, the pb we have is that anyone could take the code, modify it for
 >>his own MCF derived format and pretend it's MCF while it's not. We have
 >>to avoid forks to ensure compatibility (which is very important). BSD
 >>can't help in that territory.
 >
 >
 > Actually, no license can help with that.  If somebody wants to modify 
the code
 > to make their own format and pretend their format is still MCF, no 
open-source
 > license will prevent them.  The only thing these licenses you're 
considering
 > will do in that regard is let you adopt their new changes/format as 
part of the
 > official MCF stuff if you want to (which you probably won't).

Or make improvements that they don't want to share with *us*...

 >>>Note that a license doesn't _need_ to be OSI-approved to be useful.. 
it's
 >>>really mainly a formality, as most people don't care whether an 
open-source
 >>>license is "OSI approved" or not, just whether it's open.
 >>
 >>It is for a software hosted on SourceForge. Otherwise you can't !
 >
 >
 > That's not true.  You can specify a non-OSI license for sourceforge 
projects,
 > it just requires that the sourceforge folks look it over themselves 
to verify
 > that it does follow open-source principles.  There is a well-defined 
procedure
 > for that.  The OSI thing is just a convenience for the sourceforge 
admins so
 > they don't have to inspect every new license for every project by hand.

Yeah, and I guess you must be very lucky for them to read such a big 
license and be willing to accept it... Anyway this license will not be





-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf