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

Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?

On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> But still there's a lot of cruft in it that might be just confusing for
> an author who considers GPL for his text, or even add confusion to a
> possible lawsuit.

Licenses *are* confusing. Not our fault, nor can we do anything about
it; there's a limit to the effectiveness of the anti-lawyer spray we
use. Deal with it.

Any scenario which appears to contain a license which isn't confusing
is one which contains a license you don't understand properly, and
should be treated with the utmost suspicion, just like a perpetual
motion machine.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: