[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL version 3 comments
From: |
penguin |
Subject: |
Re: GPL version 3 comments |
Date: |
30 Dec 2006 16:03:23 -0800 |
User-agent: |
G2/1.0 |
John Hasler wrote:
> Alfred M. Szmidt writes:
> > I.e. you could modify the GPL into being a non-free license, and
> > still call it the GPL.
>
> I wrote:
> > That does not follow.
>
> Alfred M. Szmidt writes:
> > Yes, it does, if and only if you are permited to modify the GPL. But the
> > GPL is licensed under the following terms:
>
> The GPL could be licensed under terms that permitted the distribution of
> derivatives provided that the name was changed.
>
> | Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
> | license document, but changing it is not allowed.
>
> > So you cannot modify it, and thus you cannot make a non-free variant of
> > the GPL.
>
> One can do so with trivial ease by simply adding an exceptions file.
> --
> John Hasler
> john@dhh.gt.org
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, WI USA
How would an exeptions file be treated in court? The GPL needs to fit
every program, and what if someone doesn't see the exeptions file?
- Re: GPL version 3 comments, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: GPL version 3 comments, David Kastrup, 2006/12/27
- Re: GPL version 3 comments, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/12/27
- Message not available
- Re: GPL version 3 comments, David Kastrup, 2006/12/27
- Re: GPL version 3 comments, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/12/27
- Message not available
- Re: GPL version 3 comments, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/12/27
Message not available
Message not availableRe: GPL version 3 comments, John Hasler, 2006/12/27
Re: GPL version 3 comments,
penguin <=
Re: GPL version 3 comments, Ciaran O'Riordan, 2006/12/31