* Branden Robinson: > On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:33:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Branden Robinson: >> >> > In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the >> > requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative >> > work is not allowed, since those restrictions never attached to this >> > work; see section 6. This work can be combined with another work licensed >> > under the GNU General Public License, version 2, but any section 2a and >> > 2c restrictions on the resulting work would only attach only due to the >> > copyright license on the work(s) with which this work is combined and for >> > which those restrictions are in force. >> >> Isn't this at least a bit self-contradicting? > > I don't think so.
You are trying to create a GPL-compatible license that explicitly forbids relicensing under the GPL. These two goals are in conflict. > What problem(s) do you think there would be in licensing the work in > question[1] under the straight GNU GPL? > What applicability do you suggest clause 2c) has to things that > can't "read commands interactively when run", because it's not a > program? None, and that's my point. The clause is completely without effect because it only applies to programs which run interactively. Obviously, documentation is not a program that runs interactively, so documentation always fulfills this condition. Furthermore, I don't understand the reason for preventing someone from reintroducing the 2c) clause with respect to the work in a derivative work which happens to be an interactive computer program. If you remove this restriction, a lot of complexity goes away. >> Your license doesn't give me permission to publicly perform the work, >> or to broadcast it. > > True enough. Neither does the GNU GPL. Why is this not a problem for the > GNU GPL? The GPL was designed to be applied to computer programs. A license explicitly labeled as "documentation license" should address this issue. >> It doesn't deal with moral rights at all (which >> are quite important in some jurisdictions when it comes to >> non-programs). > > True enough. Neither does the GNU GPL. Why is this not a problem for the > GNU GPL? The GPL was designed to be applied to computer programs. A license explicitly labeled as "documentation license" should address this issue. >> It doesn't special-case distribution of printed copies, which means that >> the GPL provisions apply. These provisions pretty much rule out >> small-scaleprinting and redistribution because of the "valid for at least >> three years" rule. > > True enough. Neither does the GNU GPL. Why is this not a problem for the > GNU GPL? The GPL was designed to be applied to computer programs. A license explicitly labeled as "documentation license" should address this issue. >> However, the license does clarify what constitutes source code, but this >> might also be a further restriction in the GPL sense, making the license >> incompatible with the GPL. > > What's your reasoning? If someone transforms the document into an > executable program, they have likely changed the preferred form of > modification for the work. Nothing in the GNU GPL forbids them from doing > so, and my clarification doesn't either. Something might be labeled as source code even if it isn't. But you are right, this is not a problem related to the clarification.
