🚀 go-pugleaf

jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes:
> In <aN5sgB20w164w@mantis.co.uk>, From A to B writes:
> >No.  The aim is to release code under a license which does not restrict
> >what you may do with the code, how you may distribute it, or anything like
> >that.
> 
>     Umm, isn't that the definition of public domain?

No.  Public domain means uncopyrighted.

>                                                   Or were you planning
> on just a little bit about restriction. Like " if you make any money
> using this code, I want some "

No restrictions on what you may do with the code.  No required fees, no
prohibition of commercial distribution, ... 

>     If you have no restrictions on anything done with the code, tell
> me where to get it. I'll put in a null function and releaese it all 
> under the GPL.

You wouldn't be able to release it under the GPL, because you would
then have removed the original license.  You could release it under a license
which was a combination of the original license and the GPL.

> Unless you restict that usage.

Such usage won't be restricted.  However, you might find that people start
saying "Look, the FSF are extremists, they even steal other people's code
and put it under their license".  Hardly good advertising.


mathew

-- 
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices