On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 05:17:25PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Branden Robinson wrote: > > At the same time, I'm struggling to determine an essential distinction > > between a single de-facto closed-universe project, and a vast collection of > > such projects (which all works licensed under the GNU GPL could be said to > > be). > > Parts of works under the GNU GPL (or other compatible licenses) can be > incorporated into other projects under the GNU GPL (or other compatible > licenses). I don't think this makes it a "closed-universe project", > although perhaps the entire collection of such projects could be > considered a "closed universe". > > Parts of works under a patch clause license cannot be easily > incorporated into other projects (regardless of those other projects' > licenses), unless the entirety of the other project is considered to be > a patch on the part of the patch-clause-licensed work. This becomes > even more difficult when incorporating material from more than one such > work. Hmm, that does appear to be a telling distinction. You may have identified why our "patch clause" exception makes me so uncomfortable. -- G. Branden Robinson | It's like I have a shotgun in my Debian GNU/Linux | mouth, I've got my finger on the branden@debian.org | trigger, and I like the taste of http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | the gunmetal. -- Robert Downey, Jr.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature