Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> Don Armstrong <email@example.com> writes:
> > [Defining terms in the license grant] is a bad idea.
I should note that this is not just defining terms in the license
grant; it's either a null operation, or it adds a class things to
object code which was not previously included.
You could easily write a set of definitions which translated the GPL
into an entirely different license.
> > If GPLv2 does not actually mean this, you are adding an additional
> > restriction. If it does, you're just wasting time. Neither option
> > is terribly useful.
> What the GPLv2 means is partly up to the intent of the persons
> drafting that document, but the meaning *for a particular work* must
> surely take strong influence from the intent of the party granting
> license to that work.
That's perfectly fine, but it doesn't influence the license of any
other work, which is exactly why this is a bad idea.
You're free to add any additional restrictions to your GPLed work that
you want, whether through "interpretations" or by changing the GPL
itself. That doesn't obviate the need for you to comply with the terms
of GPLed works which you do not own the copyright of.
1: Though of course, the distributability of such works by anyone but
the copyright holder may be an open question.
No amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free
[...] You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.
-- Robert Heinlein _Revolt in 2010_ p54