Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Simon Josefsson: > >>> I think you might get broader support in the vendor community if you >>> make the license for modified copying non-copyleft. >> >> Yes, that is the intention. Requiring a copyleft license is likely to >> meet with disapproval from too many people, for various reasons. > > But isn't the "this notice [...] preserved" part problematic? > > | The Contributor grants third parties the right to copy and distribute > | the Contribution, with or without modification, in any medium, > | without royalty, provided that the copyright notice and this notice > | are preserved, and that any claims of being the authorative RFC are > | removed.
Why - isn't that just like the "provided ..." part in the GPL: ,---- | 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's | source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you | conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate | copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty `---- Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
