On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:26:41PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Rather than continuing to assume that I'm an idiot, please try to > imagine reasonable things I might mean. You were talking about how > "portions copyright foo"-style notices didn't work; I provided a > reference to a GPL'd project (Mozilla) in which they are used.
As near as I can tell, you're not understanding my point at all. How am I supposed to express how reasonable you are while addressing the point we're talking about, while you're not expressing an understanding of what I've said? > >> > I don't think you understand what I'm asking. I'm asking about how > >> > you expect the boundaries between the incompatible parts (where future > >> > versions of the GPL are allowed and where they're not) are meant to be > >> > maintained. The copyright file won't work for that, unless you place > >> > further restrictions on how people edit the program. > > > >> > But you're not allowed to place further restrictions. > >> > >> The copyright file does work for that. And if you have doubts about > >> what is under what license, you can ask the copyright holders. > > > > I agree that the copyright file allows you to place further restrictions > > on the derived program. However, in that circumstance, you're not > > allowed to distribute it. > > Sigh. You aren't even reading your own text any more, much less > mine. You said the copyright file doesn't work for indicating > boundaries of works. And I presented some examples of what I meant. > I said it does. And you didn't address my examples. > Now you've chosen to read my > response as referring to placing further restrictions. That's what my examples were about. > >> > Except, section 2 requires that if you choose to distribute the modified > >> > program you distribute the modifications such that "this program" also > >> > refers to the modifications. > >> > >> Yes, but when "this program" is taken as referring to the modified > >> version, then the "licensor" is the modifier, not the FSF. > > > > Yeah, great. > > > > I'm disputing the claims you've made about the terms the program is > > available under, and you're talking about who holds the copyright on > > the program. > > What I have said is very relevant: Go read GPL 6: it provides a grant > of license from the original licensor. You can't claim that "the > Program" means *my* work and "the Licensor" means the FSF at the same time. The program includes your work. The program includes FSF's work. So any statement about the licensor must be true with both you and the FSF as the licensor. > > Though, I suppose it's worth pointing out, with modified versions both the > > FSF and you hold copyrights. And there's no problem with this unless you > > try releasing the program under different terms from what the FSF used. > > > > If you want your bits to be available under different terms from the > > FSF's, the right way to do this is make your bits available in some form > > which is independent of gcc (or independent of whatever program we're > > talking about). > > What? That's mad. Why can't I put my parts into the public domain > and distribute them, or put them under some GPL-compatible license and > distribute them? You can. Of course, any parts in the public domain can be put under any other license, including the GPL. If you want those parts to continue to be available in the public domain, you really ought to be distributing them independently. If you fail to do so, you very quickly reach the point where no one knows that they're available in the public domain. -- Raul
