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.
> 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
>  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
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 email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org