On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 12:25:21PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > > 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. The very real difference is that in all other cases, you can continue to follow the original license *by continuing to comply with the terms of the GPL*. However, if the endorsement clause can be interpreted as being GPL-compliant (i.e., it can be understood as part of the legal boilerplate that licensors are allowed to require the reproduction of), then there should be no problem with or without the special wording -- it just becomes more convenient for GPL authors if they don't have to reproduce the endorsement clause /everywhere/ that DFCL content is used. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgphYtoLCiwa7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
