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

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

> > 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.

Raul Miller wrote:
> > Has metafont been put under the GPL?  I hadn't realized that.  In that
> > case, I need to find another example.

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 07:14:21AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> No.  The GPL requires that the notices be kept intact.  Not that they be a

I was looking for a "patches only" license, and my memory wasn't up to
the job.  Replace "metafont" with some software under a "patches only"
license (or, any license with some restriction not imposed by the GPL
-- a "must rename" license is probably enough), to see the point I was
trying to get across.

Or just read the GPL and consider what happens in the case where a
DFSG license imposes some restriction not imposed by the GPL, and where
someone wants to combine software under the two licenses.

> 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).

The problem comes when the licensing terms conflict.

That said, I don't have any reason to believe it's possible to have
licensing terms which aren't explicitly stated in the license on the
software.  If I receive software with a license, I have no reason to
act as if there were some other licensing terms which I haven't been
told about.

[If that doesn't make sense to you, re-read what you wrote.]


Reply to: