On Fri, 29 May 2009 17:40:05 -0500 Gunnar Wolf wrote: > brian m. carlson dijo [Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:34:36PM +0000]: > > >> Permission is hereby granted to use, copy, modify, and distribute this > > >> software (or portions thereof) for any purpose, without fee, subject to these > > >> conditions: > > >> (1) If any part of the source code for this software is distributed, then this > > >> README file must be included, with this copyright and no-warranty notice > > >> unaltered; and any additions, deletions, or changes to the original files > > >> must be clearly indicated in accompanying documentation. > > > > I don't know if this is compatible with the GPLv2. The requirement to > > include the README file may be considered an additional restriction. > > Well, the original author is free to choose any (coherent) licensing > scheme for his work. Yes, as long as it is coherent, as you say. > The original author can choose to use GPL plus an > extra restriction No, I don't think he/she can, because the resulting licensing is self-contradictory, and thus not coherent. To be more precise, he/she can, but the result is self-contradictory and probably not useable as a valid license. See this thread http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00298.html and especially: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00309.html The following disclaimers apply: IANAL, TINLA. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpkJxg3MPseV.pgp
Description: PGP signature