Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 01:01:55PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>> >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.]
>> This did not make sense to me.
> I was referring to this statement by Joe Moore:
JMoore> The GPL requires that the notices be kept intact. Not that
JMoore> they be a complete explanation of all copyright holders, nor a
JMoore> complete description of the licensing terms.
> I suppose there's some question here -- what does "a complete
> description" mean? My point was that all license terms must be stated
By "complete description" I mean a complete list of all terms and
permissions that apply to the software. Now that I look at it, perhaps
"exhaustive" would be a better word than "complete".
For example, the Linux kernel may contain an implementation of the crc32
checksum algorithm, which was released into the public domain by the author.
To state that the Linux kernel is licensed under the GPL does not completely
explain the rights you have over the crc32 code. In fact, you have the
right to extract the crc32 code and use it in your metasyntactic "paladium"