Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Maybe I'm remembering something completely wrong, but I thought that legal contracts in the US were not copyrightable. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
