On Tue, 2002-05-14 at 16:26, Santiago Vila wrote: > This means if we mix CUPS code under the new GPL+exception license and > ordinary GPL code, the result may only be distributed under the > unmodified GPL or not distributed at all, which means you can't send > CUPS maintainers a GPLed patch anymore...
In practical terms, this isn't a real issue; Easy Software Products requires that you assign them copyright for any patch they incorporate into official CUPS releases. So patch writers are already giving them the liberty to relicense as they wish. If unofficial CUPS releases contained standard GPL code, then I imagine the whole work would end up under the straight GPL; even if the restriction were relaxed for most of the code, the "unrelaxed" code would place restrictions on MacOS users that would, in effect, license the combined work under the GPL. I don't see how this would contradict the license of either work. But I agree that the wording isn't ideal, and that dual-licensing would probably serve their purposes better. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
