Re: Programming Languages Was: RMS comments:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 06:26:38PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 06:04:23PM +0100, Sian Leitch wrote:
> > The licence is not identical to the GPL, but is effectively the same.
> > There are no restrictions on use other than retaining the copyright
> > notice in all copies and marking in the source the name of the
> > amending organisation.
> That is very different from the GPL. I'd list the differences,
> but they would boil down to "all of the GPL except for clause 2a
> and a bit of clause 1", so there's not much point in that. Just
> read the thing.
> Please don't confuse people about the GPL by misrepresenting it
> this way. There's already enough confusion about it.
Let me repeat what you just quoted:-
The licence is not identical to the GPL, but is effectively the same.
There are no restrictions except.
The GPL also has no restrictions except that you cannot impose any
restrictions on any user other than those specified in the GPL. Which
are *roughly* equivalent to the restrictions specified in the
copyright of Ctras.
I have *not* misrepresented the GPL. I did not say that the Ctrans
licence is the same as the GPL. On the contrary, I said, for the
third time, that "The licence is not identical to the GPL...". Its
effect is the same. You can do what you want with Ctrans except
restrict users' access to it. IOW, others must have the same rights
Stop misrepresenting *me*. :-)
Sian Leitch (Software Engineer specialising in Algol 68)
Algol 68 for Linux is available from me at
Look for ctrans-bin_0.1.0.tar.gz