Re: lookandfeel General Public License (LAFGPL)
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 02:28:01AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> *Sigh* Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. The license itself appears to
>> be a violation of the FSF's copyright in the preamble of the GPL; the FSF
>> doesn't grant any right to modify that preamble, disgustingly enough.
>> It's not legally safe to distribute the license text, so we can't very
>> well
>> distribute the software. Blech.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL says you can. I seem
> to recall there being a conflicting statement elsewhere in the FAQ, but I
> can't find it now.
>From the link you quoted:
"You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided
that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough
^^^^^^^^
to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the
actual procedure you describe may be similar). "
This preamble is very close to the GPL preamble; it's clearly a derivative
work, since entire sentences are the same, others are only slightly
changed, and the structure is identical. So it doesn't really satisfy the
requirements given here. :-(
"If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to
<licensing@gnu.org> for permission. For this purpose we would want to check
the actual license requirements to see if we approve of them."
I suppose this person might have done that, but I doubt it.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: