On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 10:37:11AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: > > "Review the text of the GNU GPL and note the many times it makes > > reference to "this License". The GNU GPL is a self-contained license > > document. A copyright holder is well within his rights to distribute a > > work under the terms of the GNU GPL and an arbitrary number of > > alternative terms, but those alternative terms cannot restrict the > > licensing of the work under the GPL, or the application of the GPL is > > void." (Branden) > > > > which I've referenced on this list several times and never seen challenged. > > (Direct challenges to him, though, as although I favor this interpretation, > > I'm not equipped to defend it.) > > OK, for the record, reluctantly I will. > > Branden, I think you're off-the-mark here. 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". In that case, the work is not effectively licensed under the GPL. It licensed under something like the GPL minus (or plus) some terms. The result may or may not be DFSG-free. I stand by my statement. "those alternative terms cannot restrict the licensing of the work under the GPL, or the application of the GPL is void." ...because it's not the GPL anymore. It's a something-else license. If I dual-license my work, and use one license to claim that the other license doesn't really apply, then I don't have two licenses, I have one. Or, depending on how you want to think about it, I still have two licenses, but neither of them are the GNU GPL. > There is nothing invalid about this, as far as I can see. Not invalid, but it doesn't make sense to pretend that such things are licensed under the GNU GPL, because they aren't, despite the appearance of the GNU GPL's license text. > This is clearly what is intended in most of the cases we have seen of people > saying "GPL but...". Sure. > Where's the problem? It's not what the GPL was intended for, and it's not > what you'd like to see it used for (hell, most of the time it's not what I'd > like to see it used for, either), but I don't believe we do ourselves any > favours by pretending What is self-delusional about my statement? What more would you care to read into my words? > that it doesn't make any sense, It may not make sense. The GPL could be effectively modified such that the resulting license is nonsense. > that it's invalid, It may be invalid. The GPL could be effectively modified such that the resulting license is unenforceable or impossible to comply with. > or that we can't make out what the author intended. It may be that we cannot make out what the author intended. The author's other statements regarding licensing may result in a logical contradiction. > When we come up against one of these cases we should say "Is this what you > intended? Thought so... we don't like this because X. Would you be willing > to change it? Even if not, we think you'd do well to clarify what you mean as > follows..." rather than mumbling on about the author being some kind > of fuckwit who clearly doesn't grok the GPL, copyright law, our principles > or whatever. I am disinterested in having a discussion with you if you're going to put words in my mouth. I'm sorry that you appear to be deeply offended by the paragraph that Glenn Maynard quoted, but it doesn't say the things you're accusing it of saying. I suspect you are letting your emotions get the better of you. > What precisely would be the problem with that? You are presenting a false alternative. Observing that a work is not licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License in no way renders impossible a friendly approach to an author to clarify what licensing terms are intended. If someone feels insulted that another person notices that their work isn't really under licensed under the GNU GPL, well, that's their problem. -- G. Branden Robinson | You are not angry with people when Debian GNU/Linux | you laugh at them. Humor teaches branden@debian.org | them tolerance. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- W. Somerset Maugham
Attachment:
pgpYIS4IlNEcW.pgp
Description: PGP signature