On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:54:45AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > The legal documents, *as applied to a particular package*, must be > retained verbatim. But the law itself doesn't prevent me from taking > the GPL, modifying it, and using the modified version as a license for > my own package. > > The GPL does, however, prevent this; and that is why I complained loudly > about our stance on this sometime back. I'm not crazy about it either, but given that there appears to be some doubt (in the United States) as to whether the text of contracts can be documented, the FSF may be in a murky area when it comes to the "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" part of the GNU GPL. I will say that it is not an issue I am sanguine about contending with the FSF. In my personal opinion, there are both more important differences to resolve with the FSF first (the GNU FDL), and more important common causes to cement (license proliferation, and defense of the community in general). However, I do not insist that your strategic calculus be identical to mine. -- G. Branden Robinson | I'm sorry if the following sounds Debian GNU/Linux | combative and excessively personal, branden@debian.org | but that's my general style. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Ian Jackson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature