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
>> 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
<email@example.com> 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.