Of course I will attribute my works, probably by copying Bill's attribution into my license.txt. And yes, I will be maintaining the anti-viral restriction. If there are other attributions of note which actually make it over to my code in some fashion, they too will be noted - and if someone else thinks they see an unattributed block they can notify me and it will be attributed. I wave my hands because it was clear to me from the first mail that a mountain was being constructed from the lair of a small burrowing creature, and that lengthy emails would ensue which, in the end, would result in no change. Such a result has come about, though perhaps you and Trent (and miscellaneous lurkers) will feel better knowing my aims are not nefarious :) -----Original Message----- From: netrek-dev-bounces at us.netrek.org [mailto:netrek-dev-bounces at us.netrek.org] On Behalf Of mark at mark.mielke.cc Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 8:10 PM To: Netrek Development Mailing List Subject: Re: [netrek-dev] Code modification and licenses On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 08:04:12PM -0700, ChronosWS wrote: > License follows: > NETREK XP LICENSE > It's really simple. Permission is granted similar to the copyright notices > from Chris Guthrie, Kevin Smith and Scott Silvey. > * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its > * documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided > * that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that > * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting > * documentation. Will you be complying to the requirement that "the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation"? > * No representations are made about the suitability of this > * software for any purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or > * implied warranty. > > With one restriction. > > You may not re-license this code under the GNU General Public License or > even the Lesser GPL(LGPL) licenses, or any other viral license which > requires the forced release of source code as a condition for binary release. Will you be retaining this restriction? The original complaint was that you might not be attributing your derived works appropriately. You agreed that you did not intend to. You claim that you can do this because you are "re-writing" the code. However, you have not provided any examples of arm's-length strategies that you will employ to guarantee that your software will be a re-write. You wave your hands over the significance of the license, claiming that the product has no monetary value, therefore the license need not be respected. You don't see why somebody else might be concerned? :-) Cheers, mark -- mark at mielke.cc / markm at ncf.ca / markm at nortel.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ _______________________________________________ netrek-dev mailing list netrek-dev at us.netrek.org http://mailman.us.netrek.org/mailman/listinfo/netrek-dev