Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:57:31 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> It might be helpful for somebody to summarize the net
> addresses of the existing Free code licenses and what
> kind of Free reuse they permit and what kind of conversion
> from Free to non-Free they permit.
>
This is covered pretty well in the Ada Community License. Visit
http://www.riva.com/booch/acl.html
to read the full text.
To my knowledge, nobody else has used it for licensing, opting instead
for the (slightly) more restrictive GNU Public License.
Let me make a comment here. I work in the C/Perl/Java communities as
well as the Ada community. It is without fail that the Ada community
worries the most about free vs. non-free stuff, and that there are a
good many "commercial"(actually "aerospace") companies that reject
"free" software for very unrealistic fears. Perhaps it's just a
culture thing. Commercial companies are very focused on getting the
job done and hitting time-to-market issues (and, yes, sacrificing
quality in the process). I have yet to see corporate hand-wringing
about licensing terms from any commercial companies I'm working
for/with. That doesn't mean they're violating things, it's just that
they don't have bored lawyers saying "How can we _prevent_ engineers
from using this software?"
The ACL answers all your questions, Mike.
|
|
|