[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: ports_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: License Procedure
- From: Peter Valchev <pvalchev_(_at_)_toxiclinux_(_dot_)_org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:35:55 +0000
- Organization: www.toxiclinux.org
I'm now working on a port of the GPL (Graph Template Library) based on
the STL. It contains interesting classes to work with graphs, nodes and
edges and some basic algorithms as building blocks for more complex
It's developed by the University of Passau (Germany).
The thing I'm concerned about is the license they use.
Basically it states the following:
The authors hereby grant permission to use, copy and modify this
software and its documentation for any purpose, except the ones
mentioned in this copyright notice, provided that existing copyright
notices are retained in all copies. No written agreement, license, or
royally fee is required for any of the authorized uses.
Commercial use of GTL without prior written permission is prohibited.
GTL must not be distributed without prior written permission. The
terms of this copyright notice also apply to any modification to this
So would putting that line in the Makefile be enough?
(and am I supposed to 'say' "PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM= No" and so on...)
LICENSE_TYPE= GPL, no commercial use
Although it doesn't state it anywere in the installation process, i.e.
to warn the user... which is kind of inconvenient at all.
For now I only considered using "ECHO_MSG=something", but it doesn't
seem to be appropriate at all.
So, what will be the correct approach here?
Or, is the 'no-commercial-use' normal to accept?
$Id: .signature,v 1.156 2000/10/11 14:03:27 pvalchev Exp $
* Peter Valchev <pvalchev_(_at_)_toxiclinux_(_dot_)_org>
Visit your host, monkey.org