| Re: [AD] giftware license |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
- To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [AD] giftware license
- From: Elias Pschernig <allefant@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:52:28 +0200
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=gLM8IPyiCVwCiK114hTcClTZq6IQq55QYsh/+ghHzeGgBbVeGIgH5ZM3RQrCAiWQsKv4MT1uiAfk9uSAhkd5IQHOXI70QVT09MMjlgqIYzuz1CXbS/uoixOhjD/PPYem45QcLrbi4uoIRZZMoEXmcSYGUAMlTiWZDVHK9b8KAFM
> 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.
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.