On Mon, 1 May 2006 15:19:08 +0200 Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 07:41:28PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 01:55:55 +0200 Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >
> > > Do I need to get the copyright holder of the documents to
> > > relicense it under the GPL? It seems clear to me that it
> > > already is covered by the GPL, but it shouldn't be a
> > > problem to get the copyright holder to explicitly state
> > > that.
> >
> > Yes, please do.
> > A clarification would be highly useful, IMHO.
>
> I'm not sure, but I think if they say that the rfc is covered by
> the gpl, that it might need to have some exception saying that
> the name needs to be changed, which also seems to be compliant
> with DFSG #4. Does the GPL allow such exceptions?
No, a name-change clause can comply with DFSG#4 (depending on how it is
phrased), but is incompatible with the GNU GPL v2.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpkzyA4hAKO7.pgp
Description: PGP signature