On 26-Jan-99 Jules Bean wrote: > It doesn't have to be. The GPL could say, for example, 'this license > applies to the software which is put under it, as well as this document > itself, when it is distributed with the software'. > > It doesn't, of course, say that. And it doesn't with 'good' reasons, > which RMS has explained, and which I disagree with. But I think we're > pragmatically going to have to live with. > I'd be curious why. If the GPL is GPL'd, I could take it, change it to, say, allow me to link with Qt (old) and viola, the whole KDE problem goes away... That's a bit simplistic but I think it gives you and idea on why I'm curious why/how licenses can be GPL-free. I can understand other freedoms (how about with a rename clause so that it's no longer GPL?). -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. ========================================================================= * http://benham.net/index.html <>< * * -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------* * Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * <gecko@benham.net> * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++* * KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++ * * <gecko@debian.org> * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+ * * -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------* =========================================================================
Attachment:
pgpPDs9tZ5Qqz.pgp
Description: PGP signature