On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:24:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:51:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Agreed. In particular, in such a hybrid licence, the word "this
> > License" in the GPL text would naturally be taken to refer to the
> > entire hybrid rather than just to the GPL.
>
> I don't think the FSF intends the GNU GPL license text to be interpreted
> that way. (I could be wrong, though...)
One of the strong hints that the GNU GPL is not meant to be part
of a hybrid license with additional restrictions appears right at the top.
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Everyone who generates a "cut-and-paste" license out of the GNU
GPL is plagerising, and violating copyright law. So actually editing
the GPL to include more explicit terms is right out.
If you wish to add additional restrictions before or after the
GPL, then the total license become inconsistent. The GPL clearly
marks the beginning and the end of "this License" with:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The makes it fairly clear that "this License" applies to just the GPL.
Not only that, but there's wording in the GPL that also enforces this
point of view. Section 8 says "In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this license."
The reason why you can waive restrictions is that Section 2,
Paragraph 2, allows you to. By generalising the entire Program under a
more permissive license, a user may choose to use the more permissive
license, or to use just the plain GPL.
Simon
