On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:45:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > I would recommend that users of the GPL who find this requirement ugly > begin adding an additional exemption to 2(c) to their own works. > Branden, if I'm not mistaken, this would constitute an additional > permission and is therefore acceptable in your book? Heh, you make it sound like I'm hard to please. :) The most important reason I usually moan and holler about riders tacked on the GNU GPL is that they're often extra *restrictions*; i.e., net reductions on the amount of freedom enjoyed by the users; i.e., make the work more, not less distinguishable from being in the public domain. Only slightly less important that this is that extra restrictions render the work itself GNU GPL-incompatible, thanks to clauses 6 and 7 of the GPL. That means such a work can't be linked with libraries licensed under the ordinary GPL (which turns out to be a major practical problem for most work using the GPL + rider clauses). Third, it means that the code in the work cannot be freely borrowed and placed into other GPLed works without causing headaches -- the software doesn't really belong to the "commons" of copyrighted works that are licensed under the GNU GPL, which is a large and important collection of materials. Riders on the GNU GPL that grant extra *permissions* have *none* of these problems. Therefore, you're correct -- it's acceptable. Just thought I'd offer you a detailed explanation since I get the feeling you didn't understand where I was coming from. I'm not trying to be Moses giving you the Law; I think I'll render better service to debian-legal if people understand *why* I think the way I do. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | If encryption is outlawed, only branden@debian.org | outlaws will @goH7Ok=<q4fDj]Kz?. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpVUywwOv0Cb.pgp
Description: PGP signature