On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:51:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Nick Phillips <nwp@nz.lemon-computing.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. I don't think the FSF intends the GNU GPL license text to be interpreted that way. (I could be wrong, though...) > > To attempt to coerce upstreams into modifications of their intended licenses > > by pretending otherwise is, IMHO, deceitful, immoral & hypocritical. I don't think it's a pretense. > I concur. (Bad things do happen if the licensor thinks that such a > license is compatible with pure GPL in either directions, though). One problem is that they usually do. -- G. Branden Robinson | Intellectual property is neither Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual nor property. branden@debian.org | Discuss. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Linda Richman
Attachment:
pgpSQoEPFkrfW.pgp
Description: PGP signature