Re: Licenses under GPL?
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Darren Benham wrote:
>
> 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.
You would be changing the text of a document. You could then use that
document as a license on a work of yours.
You would not, however, be changing the license on a piece of work. That
you simply can't do.
>
> I can understand other freedoms (how about with a rename clause so that
> it's no longer GPL?).
A rename clause would be a sensible precaution in a 'free' license.
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: