Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:31:40PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: >> All that seems rather obvious to me, so why write it down? Would >> there be another possible interpretation otherwise? If that's the >> case, why not mention programs that allow only one specified version? > > In law, anything which is not written down is neither obvious nor > true. That's how contracts and licenses have always worked.
I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all what a "derived work" might be, just to take an example. Maybe it was because the author himself actually could figure out the bit about the license version, but didn't more of a clue than anyone else about the parts that really matter. Then again, maybe there was some other reason. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
