5 ms·
It's basically the GNU Classpath wording, but I had to modify it slightly to achieve my goals [1]. Part of the wording about the objective (the first sentence)
by logn 11y ago
It's basically the GNU Classpath wording, but I had to modify it slightly to achieve my goals [1]. Part of the wording about the objective (the first sentence) was shamelessly borrowed from the Mattermost project [2]. GNU Classpath is more permissive in that its exception applies to modified versions too [3].
[1] https://github.com/MachinePublishers/jBrowserDriver/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/MachinePublishers/jBrowserDriver/blob/mas...
[2] https://github.com/mattermost/platform/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/mattermost/platform/blob/master/LICENSE.t...
[3] https://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html https://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html
- wahnfrieden 11y agoKeep in mind the custom wording will make it harder for some companies to use your code, since accepting additional licenses can require lawyer approval. This adds value to choosing one of the common licenses over crafting a similar fork.
- kijin 11y agoLGPL was intended to be a standardization of "GPL with the Classpath exception". Perhaps we need a similar license for "AGPL with the Classpath exception". Maybe call it LAGPL or something.
- DannyBee 11y agoLGPL predates the classpath exception by quite a while, and doesn't serve the same purpose at all. The classpath exception is intended to cause the target software to not have a license change just because it used a certain runtime library (classpath). The LGPL has different aims entirely (around allowing library components for software). Essentially, the classpath exception was written for programming language runtime libraries (and is thus the basis of what later became the gcc runtime library exception). The LGPL was written for random library software, and started out much earlier than the classpath exception (by a decade or two).