[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL



On Thu, 01 May 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> But as we've found out now, the part of the GPL that is actually
>> invariant is the preamble, which has no legal content...
> 
> Can you provide me a reference upon which you are basing this
> statement?

I should remind myself to follow up with all of my unread mail before
asking questions which are easily answered.[1] Although, note the
dissonance between [1] and [2]:

    In fact, the GPL is copyrighted, and its license permits only
    verbatim copying of the entire GPL.

Wheras [1] in the FAQ says something to the effect of: "If you modify
it, we probably wont take legal action against you" Of course, the
language of the GPL copyright clause itself is prety clear that it
precludes modification. [I guess the FSF just wants it both ways...]


Don Armstrong
1: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCModifyGPL
2: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOmitPreamble
-- 
I never until now realized that the primary job of any emoticon is to
say "excuse me, that didn't make any sense." ;-P  -- Cory Doctorow

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Attachment: pgpC9GxtYS134.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: