[OT] Copyleft license that allow inclusion in other program?

[Scott Elcomb]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:49 PM, S P Arif Sahari
Wibowo<arifsaha-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Is there any license that allow inclusion (more than just linking) of the
> code into other program with other license, but the license is still
> copyleft (albeit weak)?
>
> Why inclusion? Well, I think for scripts which are distributed and run from
> source (uncompiled):
>  - the term "linking" is not very meaningful (often done by the interpreter
> include the code into the caller code).
>  - some scripts do require inclusion to run (e.g. some shell codes that need
> to be put into the startup scripts).

I've been using the LGPL in this situation; it's the closest I've
found to meeting the same criteria.  It's not perfect though, the
clauses related to linking can be a little confusing in this context.

I know more than few folks who prefer to use modified BSD and Artistic
licenses for that reason, but they're not copyleft AFAIK.  The FSF has
a good list at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html -
copyleft being a trait they use in their classification scheme.

Incidentally, if the scripts you mentioned are web-based
(javascript/actionscript/silverlight/etc) and you haven't seen RMS on
"the JavaScript trap," you might find it worth a look:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html  He suggests using
the GPL for web scripts.

Cheers
-- 
  Scott Elcomb
  http://www.psema4.com/   @psema4
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists