[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL compatibility of DFCL

On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 19:45, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> While it's true that (for example) public domain code doesn't become
> GPL when it's included in a GPL'd work, it's also true that the
> recipient of such a combination can simply assume "If the GPL let's me
> do something, I can do that with this work."  My understanding has
> always been that this is because the GPL does not permit added
> restrictions above & beyond its own.  The discussion to this point has
> led me to question this understanding.[1]
> But whether this is legally ok is not really the point.  People are
> going to be surprised, confused, upset, etc., when they're bit by
> this.  That's a bad thing, and so if it's at all possible it should be
> avoided.
> [1] A work that contains both GPL'd and DFCL'd content *does* in fact
> have an extra condition, namely:
>      * If you remove portion X (the gpl'd code) from this work the
>        resultant work is bound by the DFCL's added restrictions (e.g.,
>        you must include the endorsements section).

Just the clause, remember; the endorsements can be removed at any time.

This is entirely possible.  It might be worth considering whether:

1.  The endorsements clause be made a part of the license and/or
copyright notice.

2.  All endorsements be required to be stripped when incorporating a
work into a GPLed work.

This would eliminate the problems.  Since the endorsements clause is
part of the original license and/or copyright notice, it can't be
modified anyway under the GPL and the requirements of copyright law. 
That leaves us with the endorsements themselves; stripping them entirely
would prevent their modification.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: