Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Perhaps there's some part of the GPL that gives this permission which >> > I've overlooked? If so, please quote this. > > On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:41:24PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> GPL section 2 grants the right to modify and redistribute modified versions >> (in source code form), under three conditions. (2a) and (2b) apply to all >> copies, private or not; but look at (2b). > > You seem to have left out the text which is common to these three > sections. > > This text says "...and copy and distribute such modifications or work > under the terms of Section 1 above..." > > Section 1 says "...provided that you conspicuously and appropriately > publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice..." > > The only basis I can see for saying that this doesn't require modified > copies be licensed appropriately involves a definition of "and" which > is peculiar to digital logic (as opposed to law or common english).
Wha? An appropriate copyright notice is along the lines of "Copyright (c) 1984-2004 Richard Stallman," as might plausibly appear on much GNU software. It imposes no licensing restrictions. Where do you see a licensing restriction from that? Do you think that "and copy and distribute such modifications" mean that you *must* distribute *every* copy you make? That's insane. It also doesn't conform to standard English usage. If I tell you to sit down and have some tea AND cookies, I don't mean that if you have tea you MUST have a cookie, merely that I'm offering both. If I tell you that you may copy and distribute this work, then you may copy it and you may distribute it. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
