On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:58:32PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:13:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > An abbreviated form of the so-called "viral" part of the GPL says that > > > everything you include in a GPLed work must be distributable under the > > > GPL. > > > > This isn't quite accurate: it says that it must be distributable under the > > terms of the GPL. That is, if you follow the requirements of the GPL, then > > you're also obeying the requirements of whatever the actual license is. > > That's what I said, only longer. And it remains the essence of the > problem here - we _can't_ distribute it under the GPL. No, it's not what you said. What you said is "we can't distribute it under the GPL", a.k.a. "We can't take this, say its license is the GPL, and redistribute it as such", which obviously is correct. What aj said is "We can take this, *pretend* its license is GPL, and distribute it as such". Provided the license is GPL-compatible in the way we distribute it, we can do that, as long as we don't actually modify the license terms. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org "Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation." "So is my neck, stop it anyway!" -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.
Attachment:
pgpguEgF1Dbhx.pgp
Description: PGP signature