On Sat, 2002-06-15 at 02:57, Glenn Maynard wrote: > When people see a GPL'd work, they expect to be able to do anything the > GPL allows to any subsection of it, including pull it out, print it and > sell it with no extra license information but the GPL. If that's not > always the case, it should be; and if there's a way to break that > assumption, I wouldn't like to see it used. (Rather, as I think you > suggested, it should be considered a bug in the GPL.)
None of those things would cease to be legal under the terms of the DFCL. > I don't have a problem with an endorsements clause (or, as seems to be more > important here, the "lack of endorsement" clause). I'd have a problem with > content that, when pulled out of a GPL'd work, would suddenly have additional > restrictions over those of the GPL, like needing to restore a different > license. This would be a valid criticism, except that you are already required to honor the original license on all other works that are incorporated into others and later stripped out. Think about it. Suppose you incorporated the TCP/IP stack from NetBSD into the Linux kernel. So far, all fine and good. Now, suppose someone took that TCP/IP stack back out of the Linux kernel and started using it in a proprietary OS. Does Linus (or you) have grounds to sue for copyright violation? Of course not. All you could sue for would be any little minor changes from the original NetBSD stack that you or others made, and even then, you'd have to prove that the changes weren't trivial. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
