Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

How can you restrict it to installers? | 456 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

How can you restrict it to installers?

Authored by: Wol on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 03:57 PM EST

Sounds like your policy is "only this licence and no others". As a
contributor, actually, I wouldn't be too happy with that - that I can't be freer
if I wish (however you define free).

Why can't you change the policy to say "these are the project licences you
MUST use, but you can add *extra* licences if you wish".

Okay, I wrote a load of the LibreOffice licencing guidelines, and they actively
discourage this (because of the headache of managing it) but they don't forbid
it. One of the things they push is "if you want to do this, pick a licence
that LO is already using, and pick a licence that doesn't name the
licensor". So it prefers MIT to BSD, because MIT refers generically to the
licensor, while every new entity using BSD needs a new version of the licence to
change the name of the copyright owner.

Look at the LO guff about the project licencing... (I wrote it with the benefit
of the GL legal education but a European "keep the lawyers out of it"
stance).

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )