On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 13:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org>
>
> Um, isn't this just a clarification of GPL 2(a)? True, it's marginally
> more strict than what the GPL says (namely, the GPL does not require
> pointing to the original version) but the difference is not so big as
> to "make no sense whatsoever".
It is a fair amount more, in that it also requires me to justify why I
made that change. Notice the "and why" part. I also must change the
documentation as well. To recap, in order to make that change, the
following are required above the GPL:
1) I must change the documentation to add the following statements:
a) A reason why I decided to make said change
b) A statement where the official version is at
c) A statement that my new file name only applies to non-official
versions
The are all additional restrictions, and, if the documentation is
considered other software, may run afoul the DFSG as well.
The GPL explicitly prohibits additional restrictions, so any additional
restriction --- no matter how small --- is contradictory with the GPL.
Thus, it "doesn't make any sense whatsoever."
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part