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

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:18:04AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> In exactly the same place(s) that it is in gcc.  In the source files,
>> in the output from --version, etc.
> Has metafont been put under the GPL?  I hadn't realized that.  In that
> case, I need to find another example.

No.  The GPL requires that the notices be kept intact.  Not that they be a
complete explanation of all copyright holders, nor a complete description of
the licensing terms.  If it did, the Linux kernel would be significantly
bigger (something like over 10000 (C) notices).

And the license notices would have to state that bits are BSD-licensed, bits
are PD since they were written by the government, bits may be GPLv1.  And
all of those bits would have to be specified in the files' license blurb.

Oh, and the SCO lawsuit would evaporate in a puff of logic.

If you don't have problems with a modified GNU manual (which actually
documents the equivalent busybox functionality) stating on its cover that it
is a GNU manual (and raising funds for the FSF), I don't see why you'd have
a problem with a program containing references to the GPL, when it's
actually undistributable.


Reply to: