On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 10:09:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes: > > > Can someone remind me how exactly the license above is incompatible with > > the GNU GPL? Material under this license seems as miscible with a work > > under the GNU GPL as materials under the 2- or 3-clause BSD licenses > > are. > > "Provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under > the terms of a permission notice identical to this one." Hmm, yup. "Entire resulting derived work". It would have been nice to be able to "promote" this license to the GNU GPL. I suppose there is still hope for the GNU FDL, though. Hmm. Interestingly, one cannot publish a book that contains both the entire GDB Manual from 2000 and the GNU Emacs Manual from that year or this one, thanks to the latter's invariant sections. Combining them into a single work for commercial sale would violate both licenses. (The traditional GNU documentation that RMS quoted had no invariant sections, and several GNU manuals did not have them until they were added when they were relicensed under the GNU FDL.) Unless one doesn't regard mere aggregation as derivation, that is... -- G. Branden Robinson | Good judgement comes from Debian GNU/Linux | experience; experience comes from branden@debian.org | bad judgement. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Fred Brooks
Attachment:
pgpgO6tLerdu5.pgp
Description: PGP signature