On 12/5/06, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All of those need to be qualified by *whose* GPL; that's why the recommendation for licensing a work under the GPL is "[...] GNU General Public License, as published by the Free Software Foundation [...]".
It could be interpreted as the Affero GPL for example.
Otherwise, it would be difficult post hoc to declaim the "EvilCorp General Public License version 2" as a permitted license.
Even worse, any license that has the initials 'GPL' could be used, like the EvilCorp General Private License or something really bad like that. Also this could be confusing if it turns out that there is another GPL out there.
-- \ "You know I could rent you out as a decoy for duck hunters?" | `\ -- Groucho Marx | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Andrew Donnellan -- Email - ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary) -- Email - ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 ------------------------------- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
