Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > David Starner wrote: > > > Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > > Darren Benham wrote: > > > > The most recent version of Lyx had a license change (I am told) for the > > > > very same reason. > > > > > > No. The current version has had a _clarification_ added, but is > > > still very much GPLed (without additional clauses). See the > > > Debian package or http://www.lyx.org/license.html > > > > I do see. But it's not GPL'ed. The clarification makes that very clear, > > IMO. The clarification is an addendum to the license and changes the > > terms of the license ("The terms of the GPL apply save where they > > conflict with this statement.") > > I disagree. They explicitely state that they have always used > the GPL, "While LyX has been released nominally under the GPL in the past, it has in fact never been truly GPL." - From the clarification statement.
That's an explicit statement that LyX was never truely under the GPL. > and that, legally, any clause that are inapplicable are > rejected, whether they add a clarification paragraph or not. I don't really get where you're getting this from. I think the point is that they did add a clarification paragraph. -- David Starner - OSU student - [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want a real optimist, look up Ray Bradbury. Guy's nuts. He actually likes people. -David Brin
