Re: Fwd: Re: Heart of the debate
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 05:03:59PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> I just noticed my remark in parenthesis is irrelevant, 2b clearly talks
> about licensing under the terms of this License, it's very clear derivative
> works must be licensed under the GPL.
Thank you.
> Now if your interpretation is correct why can't 3a be clear and easy to
> understand like 2b is? That is why doesn't 3a say:
>
> Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code,
> which must be licensed as a whole under the terms of Section 1 and 2 of this
> license...
The parenthetical note in Section 0 already covers this aspect, since
the executable or object is a modification of the source.
Section 3 is only concerned with *additional* requirements.
> > Well I disagree I think 2b requires derivative works to be licensed
> > under the entire GPL not just part of it.
>
> Raul I think your interpretation of the GPL is wrong.
I think I see the distinction you're trying to make.
I think you're trying to say that you can distribute a collective work
based on a GPLed Program without the distribution of that collective
work being under the control of the GPL. And, the mechanism you're
trying to propose involves distributing the collective work as a whole
such that it does not contain a notice from the copyright holder saying
it may be distributed under the GPL.
Is this true?
If this isn't true, I don't see that this distinction you're trying to
make has any practical legal consequences.
--
Raul
Reply to: