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

Re: GPL preamble removal

Keith Dunwoody <kstephen@interchange.ubc.ca> writes:

> I believe the answer is no.  The appropriate part of the GPL is
> section 2b.
> 2b)  You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
> thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
> under the terms of _this_ License.
> (emphisis mine), where "this License" refers to the original,
> unmodified GPL.

Brian's point, I think, is that the GPL states that the work must be
licensed "to all third parties _under the terms_ of this License"
(emphasis mine).  This is why it's possible to distribute
GPL-compatible code with GPL code: the non-GPL code is technically
still under its original license, but since the original license
permits the terms of the GPL there's no problem.

Recall that "license" once referred literally to permission.  The
phrase "a license" was a sort of neologism referring to a precise
delineation of the permission for legal purposes.

Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

Reply to: