Re: FAQ copyright? (I suggest Creative Commons'

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Thu Dec 25 2003 - 09:23:05 CST

Karl Auerbach <> wrote:
|> For code, we agreed on the almost-GPL license EVMPL... and I *do* feel
|> strongly about that.

|As I understand it, under the GPL you can make neither changes nor
|additions. So my understanding is that for GPL code, it is either 100%
|GPL or 0% GPL. There's no way to do either 99% or 101% GPL.

The code is NOT GPL. I guess that's 0%, if you want to put it that way.
All the source code for EVM2003 is under the EVMPL.

It's the LICENSE that is "almost-GPL." In fact, I believe that EVMPL is
-probably- "GPL compatible", in the sense that code written under EVMPL
may be licenced under GPL. Example of similar GPL-compatible licenses
are the Harbour Project License and the Python License (as of some
recent version number). But I have not managed to get an FSF response
to my inquiry on their opinion on the EVMPL; so the narrow issue of
compatibility has no official answer.

That said, EVMPL is unquestionably very much in the spirit of the FSF.
And the entire text of the GPL forms about 95% of EVMPL. Take a look at
the sourceforge site for details, we just have an extra pro-Freedom
rider for the specific context of use of the code base in governmental

Yours, David...

    _/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/
   _/_/    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/
  _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...   _/_/
 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
Received on Wed Dec 31 23:17:18 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 31 2003 - 23:17:19 CST