Re: FWD: Bug#121916: analog should be in non-free
Stephen Turner <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 6 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <email@example.com> writes:
> > > Nevertheless, I do not think it is the FSF's intention to forbid
> > > otherwise GPL-compatible licenses from requiring that their own license
> > > texts be preserved in GPL'ed derivative works.
> > It's certainly not the intention; such a reading is obviously
> > fallacious given the FSF's own practice. (Many parts of the C
> > library, for example, retain the copyrights [including the "don't
> > remove this" clause] of the upstream origins; the LGPL and the GPL do
> > not differ in this regard.)
> I realise that it's not the FSF's intention. But I still don't see how they
> reconcile it with the actual text of the GPL. Does anyone have any insight
> into this, or should I just mail them?
Because there is really just not an issue. Are you trying to make up
issues where none exist? Are you genuinely confused?
Perhaps, as I suspect, you are trying to read licenses as if they were
computer programs. Licenses are interpreted by humans, who are
allowed (nay, required!) to use judgment.