Re: PHPNuke license
Simon Law <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 10:10:45PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Simon Law <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:24:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:51:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > > > 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...)
> > >
> > > One of the strong hints that the GNU GPL is not meant to be part
> > > of a hybrid license with additional restrictions appears right at the top.
> > >
> > > Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > > 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA
> > >
> > > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> > > of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
> > >
> > > Everyone who generates a "cut-and-paste" license out of the GNU
> > > GPL is plagerising, and violating copyright law. So actually editing
> > > the GPL to include more explicit terms is right out.
> > Maybe I'm remembering something completely wrong, but I thought that
> > legal contracts in the US were not copyrightable.
> To my untrained eyes, they appear to be literary works, which
> contain significant amounts of original authorship. (The GNU GPL is
> particularly clever in its wording.)
Not that this is authoritative, but I found one person  who said
If the state of the art "air tight" contract couldn't be copied
verbatim, the necessity to use less effective words could impede the
effective practice of law; only the copyright holder could protect
the client to fullest.
On that site, there are a number of different opinions. It certainly
sounds like the boundaries are different. Insurance companies,
apparently, have sued each other over copying of contracts.
I think it is fair to say that this is unsettled law. That probably
means that Debian should consider contracts as copyrightable.