On Thu, 08 Sep 2022 01:35:59 -0600 Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Francesco" == Francesco Poli <invernomuto@paranoici.org> writes: > > Francesco> So licensing under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 and then > Francesco> adding further restrictions creates a self-contradiction. > Francesco> That does not seem a correct way to apply the GPL... > > No, it does not. That term--the term that forbids you from adding > restrictions--clearly conflicts with the "main body of the license," so > the main body of the license rather than the GPL controls. Clearly such > a license is not GPL compatible, although it may be free. Other > discussion in this thread suggests it is in fact non-free, but I want to > push back on the idea that the license is self-contradictory (and thus > non-distributable). OK, maybe it does not create a self-contradiction. However, I think that it is at least a bit misleading that this license claims to be the GNU GPL v2 with exceptions/clarifications/additions, when these exceptions effectively disable one of the main points of the GNU GPL v2 (that is to say: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein"). I am under the impression that a more correct way to achieve the same results (free or non-free) would be to create a different license, possibly reusing some parts of the GNU GPL v2, but without referring to the GNU GPL v2 (except for the acknowledgment that the new license includes some modified pieces taken from the GNU GPL v2). In other words, following the [FAQ]. [FAQ]: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#ModifyGPL> -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpvcBD7_ZvR4.pgp
Description: PGP signature