On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 19:45, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > While it's true that (for example) public domain code doesn't become > GPL when it's included in a GPL'd work, it's also true that the > recipient of such a combination can simply assume "If the GPL let's me > do something, I can do that with this work." My understanding has > always been that this is because the GPL does not permit added > restrictions above & beyond its own. The discussion to this point has > led me to question this understanding.[1] > > But whether this is legally ok is not really the point. People are > going to be surprised, confused, upset, etc., when they're bit by > this. That's a bad thing, and so if it's at all possible it should be > avoided. > > [1] A work that contains both GPL'd and DFCL'd content *does* in fact > have an extra condition, namely: > > * If you remove portion X (the gpl'd code) from this work the > resultant work is bound by the DFCL's added restrictions (e.g., > you must include the endorsements section).
Just the clause, remember; the endorsements can be removed at any time. This is entirely possible. It might be worth considering whether: 1. The endorsements clause be made a part of the license and/or copyright notice. 2. All endorsements be required to be stripped when incorporating a work into a GPLed work. This would eliminate the problems. Since the endorsements clause is part of the original license and/or copyright notice, it can't be modified anyway under the GPL and the requirements of copyright law. That leaves us with the endorsements themselves; stripping them entirely would prevent their modification. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
