On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Nick Phillips wrote: > There is nothing to stop an author making a statement that "You may > copy distribute and modify this work under the terms of the GPL in > combination with the following extra conditions, which shall override > the GPL in cases of conflict". The author can (probably) do that, but what the eventual license actually allows or disallows is kind of murkey. Mixing and matching licenses is a bad idea, as the interpretation of such a license is (basically) left to the court system. > Where's the problem? The main issue that I see is that the GPL is written in such a way that it does not allow it to be combined with other restrictions and still have the GPL take effect. In section 0 of the GPL: This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. Thus, someone could argue that the in the case of the use of the GPL but blah, the GPL itself did not apply. > When we come up against one of these cases we should say "Is this > what you intended? I agree. As much as possible, we should respect the author's wishes, and courteously point out the problems that make such wishes incompatible with the DFSG or the licensing problems that make the terms of the license unclear. Ideally, the author will find a license that incorporates his wishes as much as possible, and remains compatible with the DFSG. Don Armstrong -- N: It's a ploy. B: What? N: This drug money funds terror, it's a ploy. B: Ploy? N: A manipulation. I mean why should I believe that?" B: Because it's a fact." N: Fact?" B: F, A, C, T... fact" N: So you're saying that I should believe it because it's true. That's your argument? B: It IS true. -- "Ploy" http://www.mediacampaign.org/multimedia/Ploy.MPG http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgpiZhzNgvx31.pgp
Description: PGP signature