Quoting the referenced message, for those who don't have it handy: (RMS) > The question is what licenses I could use for modified versions of > Vim. Specifically, could I release a modified version of Vim under > the GPL? A license is GPL-compatible if it permits that; otherwise, > it is not GPL-compatible.
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 02:12:34PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > > Could someone fork CUPS and remove that exception from the fork? I > > think that would be needed for GPL-compatibility > > (Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]). > > No, I don't think that is required. All that is required is that > there are no additional restrictions above and beyond what the GPL > has. As I understood it, linking to or using GPL'd code means the program is a derived work of the GPL'd code, so it needs to be licensable under the GPL. RMS's message seemed to corroborate this. If this is wrong--in which case I'd assume he was oversimplifying--I'd like to know where. Would a license that permits--but does not require--distribution of modified source be GPL-compatible if it also has a clause prohibiting adding extra restrictions (as GPL #6)? It doesn't have any extra restrictions; instead, it's lacking one. It clearly fails RMS's test. I suppose we may be saying the same thing, actually, if we look at it backwards: if this clause can't be removed, isn't it essentially an added restriction that you can't force Apple to release their source? > However, it would be nice to be able to revert it to straight > GPL, since it would make things simpler when combining things. Agreed. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
