On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 08:35, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Your only point seems to be that *sometimes* the description of > such almost-but-not-quite-GPL licensing terms is phrased in unclear > and possibly inconsistent ways. This in no way entails that *every* > set of almost-but-not-quite-GPL licensing terms must be unclear and > inconsistent. Allow me to yell "straw man!" back to you, then, please. I don't argue that. Instead I argue that using the FSF GPL boiler plate, "Foo is free software; you can...", and then at the bottom tacking on additional restrictions is inconsistent. I also argue that similar constructions are inconsistent. So, we might be agreeing here: > Even here, you seem to argue that because "the way most people add > restrictions" is wrong, and often internally inconsistent - which I do > not deny, mind you - it is impossible to add restrictions. I'm not sure how to reconcile "it is impossible to add restrictions" with later portions of your message, snipped. Please clarify. > || Debian interprets "this License" and "herein" to mean the > || conditions of the GNU GPL expressed in its text; no more and no > || less. > > which does not seem to me to acknowledge that there is a right way to > add extra restrictions. (Right as in "probably legally sound", not > right as in "free"). Sure there is. Modify the license, and call it something else. Snip off the FSF spiel around it. Just like the GPL FAQ says. If I distribute software under a hypothetical Anthony's Silly-like License (ASlL), which just happens to very closely resemble the GPL, I hope all of us here agree that ASlL must be evaluated for freeness on its own merits: If as a whole ASlL meets the guidelines, it is free; if not, is is non-free. > But I still do not think you have offered any convincing arguments > that "GPL with the following additional restrictions: [blah blah]" > is a bad name to rename it to. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL I guess you'd be fine as long as you remove the FSF preamble and change the instructions at the end. Not sure what license the preamble and instructions are under; essentially, the preamble is the FSF's endorsement of the GPL, I doubt they'd like it on an almost-GPL license unless they gave permission. > On the contrary, I think it is the > honest way to go about it, rather than reproducing the entire load > of legalese as "the Foobar Public License" and hiding the > incriminating restrictions in the midst of vaguely-familiar licensing > text that nobody is going to read closely anyway because it just looks > like a revamped GPL anyway. It won't look at all like the GPL because it won't have the FSF preamble, and will call itself by a different name.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part