I like to think that I understand most open source licenses - but that is just making my head spin.
> The core of Ethereum will be released under the most liberal of licences.
Then why aren't they considering MIT? That's about as liberal as you can get.
> it will come with an amendment allowing it to be linked to be statically linked to software for which source code is not available.
NO NO NO NO STOP NO. Do not attempt to modify open source licenses without consulting with a lawyer. It seems innocent enough - but it could cause problems down the road. There is also some rules that say you cannot call it GPL anymore if you modify it [1].
> The core of Ethereum will be released under the most liberal of licences.
Then why aren't they considering MIT? That's about as liberal as you can get.
> it will come with an amendment allowing it to be linked to be statically linked to software for which source code is not available.
NO NO NO NO STOP NO. Do not attempt to modify open source licenses without consulting with a lawyer. It seems innocent enough - but it could cause problems down the road. There is also some rules that say you cannot call it GPL anymore if you modify it [1].
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ModifyGPL