Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [Defining terms in the license grant] is a bad idea. If GPLv2 does > not actually mean this, you are adding an additional restriction. If > it does, you're just wasting time. Neither option is terribly > useful.
I see it differently. What the GPLv2 means is partly up to the intent of the persons drafting that document, but the meaning *for a particular work* must surely take strong influence from the intent of the party granting license to that work. For the term “object code” in the GPL, there is no definition, so there is no option but to interpret what is meant; and since it's the license *from the copyright holder* that is in question, the copyright holder's interpretation is important. I don't see how getting that interpretation in writing in the grant of license is somehow an additional restriction, unless *any* such interpretation is so; and that would mean that *any* question resulting in an interpretation would be making additional restriction. That position seems untenable. In the case where the interpretation is compatible with the meaning of the GPL, it seems worthwhile to have the copyright holder's interpretation clearly written down, since the GPL leaves it ambiguous. Do we not agree that written clarity of intent is highly valuable when interpreting the license terms on a work? > If you think this is a real problem, your only real option is to use > GPLv3. For the record, I think choosing a license (such as the GPLv3) whose meaning is on this matter, without needing external clarification of core terms, is the better option. -- \ “Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you to | `\ recognize a mistake when you make it again.” —Franklin P. Jones | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
