On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 11:48:37AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > I think that the GPL uses these paragraphs to distinguish between its > permissions and its restrictions, and that it says that its restrictions > do not apply to incorporated other works, but that its permissions do > always apply. (Of course this is a simplification; refer to the > original text for the non-simplified version :-) > > This works fine for the MIT license, which already grants the same > permissions. It does not work fine for the hypothetical clause that > will allow DFCL-through-GPL tunneling, because that clause would > restrict certain things that the GPL grants permission for. If that > permission cannot be granted, then the GPL cannot be applied.
Respectfully, I disagree. I did about as careful a parsing of the language of clause 2 as I can do in my last reply to you. -- G. Branden Robinson | A committee is a life form with six Debian GNU/Linux | or more legs and no brain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgpBLwPs32UDf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
