Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness

[Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:54:18AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> However, it's probably worth noting that there's a big difference between
> [a] using the GPL verbatim and providing some additional license, and 
> [b] using some other license which happens to include terms from the GPL.
> 
> This thread was based on an instance of [a].  [When this thread started,
> that instance was non-distributable because of a silly mistake.  It has
> since been fixed.]
> 
> I would hope that this is obvious -- we'd have serious problems if it
> were not.

I'm still slightly confused.  How can the intent of the license have
been that the "modifications you submit are ours" clause have been a
separate license?  License to what?  If it's a separate license, it
seems to have no binding force at all; if it's a separate license,
I'd imagine we could simply remove it with impunity and avoid the
confusion (which I'd doubt).  It seems to me that it was intended to be
an condition added to the GPL.

I'm not getting into the "self-contained GPL" argument here; I'm only
talking about intent.  I suppose asking upstream would be a better
approach ...

-- 
Glenn Maynard