Re: Plugins, libraries, licenses and Debian

[mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård)]

Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes:

> On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:31:40PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> All that seems rather obvious to me, so why write it down?  Would
>> there be another possible interpretation otherwise?  If that's the
>> case, why not mention programs that allow only one specified version?
>
> In law, anything which is not written down is neither obvious nor
> true. That's how contracts and licenses have always worked.

I know that is how law works.  I just find it strange, that the GPL is
so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
what a "derived work" might be, just to take an example.  Maybe it was
because the author himself actually could figure out the bit about the
license version, but didn't more of a clue than anyone else about the
parts that really matter.  Then again, maybe there was some other
reason.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se