On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 04:01, Branden Robinson wrote: > The GNU GPL is not fairy dust. You cannot sprinkle it over a work that > is under some other license, and change that license. You cannot > sprinkle it over a work that is in the public domain, and take that work > out of the public domain.
I agree with this from a legal perspective. However, we are familiar with lots of situations where people with a poor grasp of the facts create all kinds of problems. DFCL-to-GPL "conversion" looks to me like it has the same potential. If you feel that the DFCL needs an explicit GPL "conversion" clause, you/we should be careful to make sure that this situation is very carefully worded and well documented to avoid situations like we have seen with the OpenSSL and KDE situations, so that there's no dispute about how to handle DFCL->GPL "conversions" and "conversions back" and all that. I would identify the problems as follows. Again, for the record, these are points of potential misunderstanding, not real legal problems. Also, I'm not looking for answers to the questions personally; think of this as a draft for a DFCL FAQ without the answers. - Can I remove the DFCL license if I incorporate a DFCL-licensed work into a GPLed work? - What license must I use to license non-trivial modifications to a DFCL document generally? - What license must I use to license non-trivial modifications to a DFCL document that is part of a GPLed work? - How do I "separate" a DFCL-licensed document from a GPLed compilation in order to exercise rights under the DFCL in it? - When do I have to strip the endorsements from a DFCL-licensed work? When do I have to restore them? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
