On Sat, 2004-09-18 at 06:38, Ian Zagorskih wrote:
> On Saturday 18 September 2004 05:11, Andy Ruhl wrote:
> > No it wasn't.
> >
> > This may sound particularly pessimistic, but this just seems like
> > another lame attempt by a self righteous do gooder to "GPLize"
> > everything in their path. Maybe this isn't the case, I don't know...
> >
> > Is it just me, or is there actually a movement out there to take a
> > program, decide that the license isn't GPL, then either steal it and
> > call it GPL, or rewrite it and call it GPL. Just for the belief that
> > GPL licensed code is inherntly better than other code? I see this sort
> > of attitude in stuff people write all over the net, as if the only
> > correct way for software to exist is under the GPL, so all software
> > must be somehow converted to GPL. The above seems to be just one more
> > example of it.
> >
> > Sorry to hijack the thread. I'm not trying to be a troll, honest. G4U
> > is cool and it's a shame this had to happen.
> >
> 
> Interesting thread. I have one question: let's say i wrote some code/app/etc 
> and want to release it under BSD license. For example, taken from NetBSD 
> code:
> 
> ---cut---
>  * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>  * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
>  * are met:
>  * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>  *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>  * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>  *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>  *    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>  * 3. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
>  *    may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
>  *    without specific prior written permission.
> ---cut---
> 
> I want to make my work to be rally free for use by other people. From my 
> personal point of view, BSD license almost exactly does this and GPL license 
> heavily restricts my rights. Question is: may i add 4th statement like:
> 
> 4. This source code may not me be distributed under other license.
> 
> Well, probably this statement isn't clear but i all want is to be sure, that 
> my code will be always really free for any usage including commercial and 
> will be licensed the way i desided to and nobody will fork it under 
> GPL/LGPL/<you name>.
> 
> // wbr

ANAL, but:

There is no language in the license that forbids you from adding
additional restrictions.