Re: [AD] giftware license

[Peter Wang <tjaden@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Elias Pschernig wrote:

> > I know we all have an emotional attachment to the "giftware" license, but
> > would it be so bad if we use the MIT license?  If I understand it right, the
> > MIT license isn't requiring that people add Allegro attributions to their
> > code, only that they don't remove Allegro attributions from Allegro's code.
> > Perhaps we could use the Giftware license "informally", as a statement of
> > purpose or something, and use the MIT license formally?
> >    
> I'd be all for changing to MIT.
>  

I think this licence thing is just going to keep reoccurring (I only 
wanted a clarification on a FAQ answer, remember?), so I'm for 
using-giftware-informally-but-MIT-formally as well.  Or we go with Bob's 
idea of dual-licensing, which I like even more.  I don't know why that 
didn't get more discussion.

> But there's still the question if it is legally possible - the
> informal text of the giftware license certainly allows it, but that
> reply on the OSI list says it is not possible because of copyright.
> I'm waiting now if TDRH shows up and answers the two questions I
> posted on allegro.cc.
>  

Well, we always said it was allowed for a 3rd party to redistribute 
Allegro under whatever licence they wanted, so I don't see why we would 
be exempt from that.

Peter