I've read many thread about GPL + additional restriction and really I
don not understand the arguments for more posters. I understand it is a
very bad way to license a software but anyway. I do not understand most
of the arguments.
There is the objection that this is contradictory: it may be true; but
even if so; jurisdiction does not reject a contradictory license as a
whole; just the contradictory points can be rejected/interpreted, so as
long as the additional requirements doesn't make the software non free I
do not understand why this may cause the software not redistribuable.
There is also the objection about forbiding additional requirement in
the GPL; but Debian (or the redistributor) doen't put additional
requirement to the GPL (and in fact it does not put any requirement at
all); it is the copyright holder who do so; and he is not bound by the
GPL. So I do not see how Debian would violate the license simply by
redistributing the software.
Of course GPL + additional requirement is GPL incompatible. The only
real problem I see in licensing a software under GPL + additional
requirement is the improper use of the trademark "GPL" (is GPL a
trademark?); for a software which is not GPL. Maybe Debian could put a
notice to warn the user that the software isn't GPL to avoid confusion.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
