Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Raul Miller <email@example.com> writes:
>> > 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).
> On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 11:16:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> 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?
> If there is no distribution or publishing going on -- if you are writing
> the additional code which is being incorporated into the program --
> there is no problem. You have full rights to everything you write and
> you're giving everyone who has a copy (yourself) all the rights the GPL
> demands (for example, you have the right to give all others GPLed rights
> to this work).
This conflicts with what you've been saying for the past week or so --
you've been asserting that I can't combine gcc and metafont, or Emacs
and OpenSSL, without violating the GPL.
Now you're changing your story.
> Where there is distribution going on -- which is a fairly typical case --
> then there is a problem. You have to keep the copyright notices intact,
> and if those copyright notices don't include a right to the work as a
> whole then you have something which doesn't satisfy the terms of the GPL.
"Don't include a right to the work as a whole"? Don't include what
right to the work as a whole? This makes no sense.
I've snipped the rest of your message because I couldn't make sense of
it either. I'm not sure that having a conversation with you is
productive: the shifting arguments and consistent oversnippage make it
too difficult to read a coherent point from you.
Brian Sniffen firstname.lastname@example.org