"Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp&gt; writes: I think "use as I see fit" would allow that. I also think if you or your company's lawyer (I am writing generically) find the wording ambiguous, then rewrite it! If you want to add or re-write a clause, then there is no rule against that. (It would slow the procces down, though.) Nonsense. Corporations assign/give code to organizations that release the code under very unrestrictive licenses, which are pretty darn close to public domain. The minor "fiduciary" advantage of using (say) a MIT-style license or some BSD variant over public demain is minor and one could argue that there are compensating advantages to using public domain: It is simpler, and hence saves expensive lawyer and manager time. It is also better understood legally. Corporations also donate to charities all the time, which would also seem to kill your "fiduciary responsibility" argument. I'll go along with the concern as being valid. However, Ben wrote: some evil corporate identity [could] revoke the GPL and enforce any license they please. That I believe is not a valid issue. -- --Per Bothner per(a)bothner.com http://www.bothner.com/~per/