"My reason for creating the Open Compatibility License
really boils down to the fact that none of the other licenses I
checked said precisely what I wanted, in both the legal and
extra-legal senses. Some are too political for my taste, some
are too sparse, some too firm and some too soft, but none were just
right. Specifically, my verInfo project has a much greater need
than normal for compatibility between versions of its source code
and versions of the persistent data it creates. (It provides
you with a way to create and extract Windows-like version resources
stored in Linux ELF-format programs.) I was concerned that if
people got creative with my source code and used it to access the
data created by an "official" copy of the program, or worse, used
it to create nonstandard data that is then passed on to people
running an official copy of the software, things could get uglier
than COBOL written by an eight-year-old on a sugar high."
"For those of you who will skip the license and only go back to
it if I say something interesting or inflammatory, here's the
You can distribute the source code and binaries I produce,
unaltered, with no further restrictions.
You can use my source and binaries in your program, unaltered,
with no further restrictions.
If you distribute a modified version of my code, either
standalone or as part of another program, you have to include my
original source and your changes in a source code patch file.
There is no "viral" clause that requires your program to be
open source if you statically or dynamically link my code into
You can use my code in any project, open or closed, at any
price you can charge for your software. I don't care about your
licensing or business models; those details are your