Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > # Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or > # extensions to this work which alter its source code become the > # property of Best Practical Solutions, LLC when submitted for > # inclusion in the work.
> What is the impact of the third paragraph? It's not listed as a condition (the preceding paragraph is about the absence of guarantee, not about giving permission). The licence is quite clearly stated as Version 2 of the GPL. It seems very similar in spirit to the note you read in some newspapers saying something to the effect of "It will be assumed that all letters are for publication unless otherwise specified", which is likewise not a licence condition but just an attempt to clarify the meaning of future communication. It might conceivably be quite a good paragraph to have in case someone sends in a patch, waits a few years, and then starts complaining about people distributing the code without permission. However, "become the property of" sounds like copyright transfer, which, as you point out, is not possible in the USA and unlikely to be valid elsewhere. The paragraph might be more effective if it said something more reasonable, such as "are licensed to ... under the same terms", which is exactly how things usually work in free software, in my limited experience. > Can Debian properly redistribute rt3 if rt3 alleges both distribution > under the GPL and GPL-incompatible restrictions? Does the fact that > the restrictions are non-enforceable (at least in the US) enter > consideration? If it were an additional restriction, then it would be a problem. Unenforceability in the USA doesn't help: it might be enforceable elsewhere, and it might be enforceable in the USA if there is a change in the law. However, to me as a layman it doesn't look in context like a restriction.
