Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 5) There will be text, in the form of a brief notice, following the > > > copyright notice, which mentions endorsements. Removing that text > > > will not be permitted, unfortunately (yes, this is invariant text). > > > > You realize, of course, that this will make DFCL stuff unusable with > > GPL'd code. Do you really want to do that? > > As noted elsewhere, I'm planning on a "GPL conversion clause". This > would permit the omission of the endorsements notice.
If I can convert it to the GPL, then I don't care what the license says. Heck, I wouldn't mind the GFDL as long as I could just convert it to the GPL. > Actually, it would only "suspend" it. The idea being that you can't > take a DFCL-licensed work, cram it into a piece of software, and then > suck it back out into a data file without having to restore the > Endorsements section. However, as long as the DFCLed work "lived" > within a GPLed work, reproduction of the endorsement clause would not be > required (remember, the endorsements themselves are *never* required). > > I don't see any GPL-compatibility problems with that. Contrary to > popular belief, the GPL does not change the copyright on anything. It > merely requires that you not impose restrictions beyond its own terms. > A DFCL-licensed work is independently copyrighted and licensed. If you > incorporate that work into a GPLed one, the endorsement terms would be > "masked off", but would re-assert themselves once the > independently-copyrighted were were extracted from its GPLed container. I don't see the practical benefits of "suspending" the license. If I modify the work, I can put my changes under the GPL. That is not that different from just licensing under the GPL. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
