Re: webmin license
On 15 Dec 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Brian Behlendorf <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > > a) REMIND may not be used under Microsoft Windows (3.0, 3.1, 95
> > > or NT) or any future version of Windows. Such use constitutes
> > > a violation of copyright.
> > > b) REMIND may not be used by Cadabra Design Libraries Inc. or its
> > > directors, nor by any of Cadabra's subsidiaries or their directors.
> > > Such use constitutes a violation of copyright.
> > > c) Except for situations (a) and (b), REMIND may be used and
> > > distributed according to the terms of the GNU General Public
> > > License, Version 2, which follows: [...]
> > a) and b) contradict c).
> No, because (c) explicitly states that (a) and (b) takes precedense
> over the terms of the GPL.
It doesn't matter that (c) says (a) and (b) take precedence - the GPL
itself says no other conditions may take precedence. So either what is
distributed as the GPL is *not* the GPL, (nor should it be called a
"patched GPL", as it reverses a significant part of what the GPL stands
for) or the GPL takes precedence. I'm sure Stallman would say the same
thing, with a bit more of a bite too. This document is
self-contradictory. I don't know what copyright or contract law says
about a license that self-contradicts.
Debian folks should be up in arms about this, I can't believe I'm the one
responding to this. Or did everyone else already /dev/null this thread?