On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:15:57PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:41:31PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > 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. > > There's no difference between these two things. Not that it has any > relevant to the current discussion. I think we've argued about this before. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200206/msg00157.html -- G. Branden Robinson | I have a truly elegant proof of the Debian GNU/Linux | above, but it is too long to fit branden@debian.org | into this .signature file. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpCQ2gX1dy0M.pgp
Description: PGP signature