ADDENDUM TO LICENSE July 2003 Copyright (C) 2003 Niall Douglas Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license addendum document, but changing it is not allowed. TnFOX Toolkit Library License Addendum. 1. License. The TnFOX Toolkit Library ("The Library") is comprised of two parts - (i) a modified derivative of the FOX GUI toolkit library and (ii) extension files wholly copyright to me. My modifications to FOX files are licensed under the GNU Library General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, version 2.1 of the License including FOX's static linking exception as detailed in the file LICENSE_ADDENDUM.txt. You can tell which are these files because they do not have (C) Niall Douglas at the top. However those files wholly copyright to me (you can tell these apart because at the top of each file they say so) fall under a modified license namely exactly the same license as FOX with one exception: You may NOT relicence any code wholly copyright to me under the normal GPL ie; section 3 of the LGPL does not apply This modified license applies to any derivatives taken from or made to files wholly copyright to me. If you wish to use some of my code under some other license, please email me and ask. Obviously so long as my code remains under the LGPL, you can use it in your GPL application in a way the LGPL permits eg; linking with it. I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not want my code ever to become under the GPL, period! Explanation: -=-=-=-=-=-= Why do I make this exception? Because while the licensing model of GPL software is better than proprietary, it is not long-term sustainable and therefore bad for the long-term future of computer software. I support a complete overhaul of Intellectual Property laws for computer software (instead of basing them on book law, mostly written several hundred years ago) which provides adequate incentive to take risks and encourage step-change innovation - and this is something the GPL inherently discourages. There is a great myth that the GPL is for protecting your own code against commercial exploitation. But I ask what does it offer which the LGPL does not? One thing: no commercial use at all, period. What does it prevent? It prevents commercial improvements to your code (which they would usually have to publicly release under the LGPL). It means commercial developers must waste production duplicating your library. It means average code quality falls, projects fall late, less standardisation and inter-operability and thus, *exactly* the same problems closed-source proprietary causes - just less so. The GPL causes exactly the same negative consequences that closed- source does. Both represent the same failed ideology that software use must be restricted for its own good. They are one and the same. Proprietary models are bad for everyone, but they do reward entrepreneurship and taking risks. We should not throw the baby out with the bath water - and while many of you reading this will want immediately to email me with flames of abuse, I should point out that I have debated this extensively with some of the leading GPL minds without satisfactory conclusion. Of course if you feel you can add something new to this, please do email me :) If you want to see more detail, please see http://www.nedprod.com/programs/definition.html GPL compatibility: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Some may complain that removing clause 3 makes the LGPL incompatible with the GPL. This is not true! The GPL permits use of non-GPL libraries so long as they too make their source code available. The primary use for clause 3 is to let the GPL steal code off LGPL libraries so like a black hole it sucks in all the code coming near it (it says so in the LGPL license text). END OF ADDENDUM