Re: webmin license
Marc van Leeuwen <email@example.com> writes:
> First, one may not amend the GPL, whatever this means exactly
Who says that? The GPL says so, but that is only relevant in
situations where the GPL has anything to say.
> Second the "remind" copyright notice explicitly references the GPL, without
> any attempt to remove any items from it that contradict its own initial
Rubbish. Conditions (a) and (b) is a clear indication that anything in
the GPL that contratict them does not apply to the program.
> > That reasoning is plain wrong. OBVIOUSLY the author want to permit
> > e.g. Debian to distribute the program. And what the author wants and
> > clearly states is the ONLY thing that matters when it comes to
> > copyright.
> It's not a matter what the author wants (obviously or otherwise) but what the
> licence states.
And what the license states is obviously that the terms of the GPL,
suitably modified to incorporate clauses (a) and (b), governs.
To claim anything else is useless sophistry that won't impress any court.
> What the author wants is contradictory (GPL and not GPL)
No, that is not what he wants, and neither what he says he wants. What
he says is that he wants the GPL suitably modified to incorporate
clauses (a) and (b).
Henning Makholm "Jeg kunne ikke undgå at bemærke at han gik på hænder."