Re: PHPNuke license
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: PHPNuke license
- From: Nick Phillips <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 21:31:41 +1300
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20030301083141.GH18241@hoiho.nz.lemon-computing.com>
- Mail-followup-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <20030301015555.GQ6007@engmail.uwaterloo.ca>
- References: <20030228161241.GA11779@christoph.complete.org> <20030228172022.GQ18499@deadbeast.net> <20030228190721.GB18030@wile.excelhustler.com> <20030228192244.GS11960@epsilon.donarmstrong.com> <20030228200232.GA20744@wile.excelhustler.com> <20030228200945.GD18499@deadbeast.net> <20030228210720.GA23307@wile.excelhustler.com> <20030301015555.GQ6007@engmail.uwaterloo.ca>
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 08:55:56PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> > Those don't apply to the copyright holder. The GPL applies only to people
> > that receive a copy from them. The "You" in "You may not impost any further
> > restrictions" in section 6 refers to people that receive the program from
> > someone other than the copyright holder that is redistributing it under the
> > GPL. It would not be the redistributor that is imposing the additional
> > restrictions; it would be the copyright holder.
> This is true. However, you cannot include the full text of the
> GNU GPL verbatim, and include additional restrictions as they stand and
> still have a consistent license. In this case, the GPL helpfully
> nullifies itself because you cannot meet both its obligations and the
> additional restrictions imposed. Therefore, your users do not get the
> privledge of copying, modifying or redistributing.
> This basically means that your program is "freeware" and not
> really "copyleft."
I believe you are mistaken; it is quite possible to include the GPL verbatim
along with extra restrictions if you state that the license you are releasing
your code under is the GPL (and include it) as modified by the following
restrictions (and list them), which take precendence over the GPL where the
To attempt to coerce upstreams into modifications of their intended licenses
by pretending otherwise is, IMHO, deceitful, immoral & hypocritical.
To attempt to persuade them into modifications of their intended licenses by
telling them that you think they'll look like prize plonkers using such a
license may on the other hand be a perfectly valid thing to do.
Nick Phillips -- email@example.com
Be cheerful while you are alive.
-- Phathotep, 24th Century B.C.