so, the # BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK and # END LICENSE BLOCK lines are there
_solely_ to allow an automated tagging tool to go through and tag
things and not intended as an ammendment to the GPL.
If we changed it to # {BEGIN|END} BPS-TAGGED BLOCK, would that satisfy
the objection?
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 12:33:37PM +0100, Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
> Regarding the 3rd paragraph of the licence in README and elsewhere as
> discussed previously on debian-legal:
>
> # BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK
> ...
> # 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.
> #
> # END LICENSE BLOCK
>
> This is appended to the GPL v2 which says in 2b,
>
> b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
> part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
> parties under the terms of this License.
>
> By "the work" (from the README) we must assume it refers to Best
> Practical's distribution of RT3. Hence, a fork which must also be
> licenced under the same terms as the original must preserve README
> para 3 verbatim. In the forked version, "the work" refers to _itself_
> not the orignal. This requires one to give copyright to Best
> Practical upon modification to the fork. The GPL is incompatible with
> this.
>
> The fix to this problem is to move the line, '# END LICENSE BLOCK'
> above paragraph 3. This makes it clear that it is a note about
> modification to Best Practical's original only and need not be
> followed in the event of a fork.
>
> --
> HEBRIDES
> SOUTHWESTERLY BECOMING CYCLONIC 4 OR 5. SHOWERS. GOOD
--
