On Fri, 26 May 2006 13:53:52 +0200 Frank Küster wrote:
> "Joe Smith" <unknown_kev_cat@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > Also it makes the work GPL-incompatible, which kindof
> > defeats the point of using the GPL.
>
> I also thought about this. But isn't it de-facto GPL-compatible: Once
> you've renamed it, you can do with it what the GPL allows and
> requires, just not change back the name to csplain. The latter isn't
> a problem with the GPL, I also am not allowed to call my GPL'ed work
> "Mac OS X Tiger" ;-).
You are not allowed to kill people with a machine gun, either. ;-)
Restrictions that don't come from the licenses are, IMHO, irrelevant
when evaluating the compatibility of two licenses.
As a consequence, if you want to know if GPLv2+restrictions is
compatible with GPLv2, you should evaluate whether you can create a work
D which is a derivative of a work A (under the first license) and of a
work B (under the second license), while complying with both licenses.
These two licenses are not compatible with each other, because GPLv2
insists that D be licensed as a whole under the same terms of the GPLv2
(see clause 2b). This is not possible because the parts of D that comes
from A are not available under the terms of the GPLv2, but instead under
more restrictive ones.
HTH.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpTyay5G2590.pgp
Description: PGP signature