Re: PHPNuke license
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: PHPNuke license
- From: Henning Makholm <email@example.com>
- Date: 01 Mar 2003 21:51:18 +0100
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: Nick Phillips's message of "Sat, 1 Mar 2003 21:31:41 +1300"
- 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> <20030301083141.GH18241@hoiho.nz.lemon-computing.com>
Scripsit Nick Phillips <email@example.com>
> 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
> two conflict.
Agreed. In particular, in such a hybrid licence, the word "this
License" in the GPL text would naturally be taken to refer to the
entire hybrid rather than just to the GPL.
> To attempt to coerce upstreams into modifications of their intended licenses
> by pretending otherwise is, IMHO, deceitful, immoral & hypocritical.
I concur. (Bad things do happen if the licensor thinks that such a
license is compatible with pure GPL in either directions, though).
Henning Makholm "*Vi vil ha wienerbrød!*"