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

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:

>> > Perhaps there's some part of the GPL that gives this permission which
>> > I've overlooked?  If so, please quote this.
> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:41:24PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> GPL section 2 grants the right to modify and redistribute modified versions
>> (in source code form), under three conditions.  (2a) and (2b) apply to all
>> copies, private or not; but look at (2b).
> You seem to have left out the text which is common to these three
> sections.
> This text says "...and copy and distribute such modifications or work
> under the terms of Section 1 above..."
> Section 1 says "...provided that you conspicuously and appropriately
> publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice..."
> The only basis I can see for saying that this doesn't require modified
> copies be licensed appropriately involves a definition of "and" which
> is peculiar to digital logic (as opposed to law or common english).

Wha?  An appropriate copyright notice is along the lines of "Copyright
(c) 1984-2004 Richard Stallman," as might plausibly appear on much GNU
software.  It imposes no licensing restrictions.

Where do you see a licensing restriction from that?

Do you think that "and copy and distribute such modifications" mean
that you *must* distribute *every* copy you make?  That's insane.  It
also doesn't conform to standard English usage.  If I tell you to sit
down  and have some tea AND cookies, I don't mean that if you have tea
you MUST have a cookie, merely that I'm offering both.  If I tell you
that you may copy and distribute this work, then you may copy it and
you may distribute it.

Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: