Gennaro Prota wrote: [...]
If we talk about *pure opinions* (for what they are worth) I'd like "subject to" or "subject to the terms of".
I forgot "Released under", which also looks attractive. And BTW, I've
Nah. Under unwritten GNU legal theory, one can take something released under "GPL compatible" (whatever that means) license and (re)license it under the GPL (in a "whole") even if that "GPL compatible" license says nothing about (re)licensing under the GPL akin to LGPL section 3. This, of course, works only in the GNU Republic, but I'd nevertheless refrain from using "Released under" wording. Oh, BTW, Nimmer on GPL legal schizophrenia, stunning double-speak, and etc. (quite entertaining and informative reading): http://www.ipinfoblog.com/archives/Open%20Source%20Legal%20Issues.pdf LEGAL ISSUES IN OPEN SOURCE AND FREE SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION1 RAYMOND T. NIMMER 1 This materials have been adapted from Chapter 11 in Raymond T. Nimmer, The Law of Computer Technology (1997, 2005 Supp.). regards, alexander.