Re: GPL compatibility of DFCL
Oops. Missed this message.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 08:43:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) a copyright work doesn't stop being copyrighted (or licensed) when it
> is combined with another work
> 2) the GPL does not trump or change the license terms of any other
> copyrighted work; it simply establishes conditions for modification and
> distribution of the work licensed under the GPL, which may or may not be
> met.[1]
> 3) you can distribute a non-GPLed work (such as an MIT or 3-clause BSD
> licensed library) along with a GPLed work as long as the license on that
> non-GPLed work does not run violate any of the GPL's terms.
I read this post, and I'm still not sure what prevents using a conversion
clause to make a DFCL-licensed work GPL, and using the terms of the GPL
when using the document on its own.
RMS calls a license GPL-compatible if a modified version of the program
can be released under the GPL (200201062326.g06NQRc04761@aztec.santafe.edu);
this implies no extra restrictions (such as needing to restore an Endorsements
clause in some circumstances). How could the requirement "come back" after
the program (document) has been released under the GPL?
I sympathise with the intent here; the "clause hiding" you're describing just
seems very strange to me. Perhaps some sample wording would help?
(I understand the other argument: that the GPL is considered by some to
be inappropriate for general content, but I think that's a different
issue.)
> I am as incredulous about your inability to perceive the compatibility I
> am proposing as you are incredulous that it's possible. Clearly one of
> us misunderstanding something. :)
pain
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: