Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!texbell!nuchat!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: While we're flaming about copyrights... Message-ID: <_AA3M15xds13@ficc.uu.net> Date: 7 May 90 15:32:57 GMT References: <=X833-ggpc2@ficc.uu.net> <6071@scolex.sco.COM> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 25 In article <6071@scolex.sco.COM> seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) writes: > > * If you redistribute the source to this program, or a derivitive of that > > * source, you must include this copyright notice intact. > I would like to see a requirement that, if only a binary is shipped, that > the source to be included. This causes, say, libraries to be > distributed with *your* stuff in source format. let me get this point right... call my package Z. If comeone builds it up as a libZ.a, they must distribute or make available the source to Z? I think that's covered, but it sounds like a good idea. > > * If the system > > * this source is distributed with is under a stricter license (such as > > * a commercial license, the typical freeware "no commercial use" license, > > * or the FSF copyleft) then you must provide the original source under the > > * original terms. > I'm not sure how to phrase it, but I would put in something about, if a > modified version of is distributed, then either the original source, > or the source used to produce the binary version of , falls under the > terms described above. Sounds good. That also solves the problem of "what do stricter terms mean", which has people quibbling at me right now. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? @FIN Commercial solicitation *is* accepted by email to this address.