On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Darren Benham wrote: > > On 26-Jan-99 Jules Bean wrote: > > It doesn't have to be. The GPL could say, for example, 'this license > > applies to the software which is put under it, as well as this document > > itself, when it is distributed with the software'. > > > > It doesn't, of course, say that. And it doesn't with 'good' reasons, > > which RMS has explained, and which I disagree with. But I think we're > > pragmatically going to have to live with. > > > > I'd be curious why. If the GPL is GPL'd, I could take it, change it to, say, > allow me to link with Qt (old) and viola, the whole KDE problem goes away... > That's a bit simplistic but I think it gives you and idea on why I'm curious > why/how licenses can be GPL-free.
You would be changing the text of a document. You could then use that document as a license on a work of yours. You would not, however, be changing the license on a piece of work. That you simply can't do. > > I can understand other freedoms (how about with a rename clause so that > it's no longer GPL?). A rename clause would be a sensible precaution in a 'free' license. Jules /----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd | | Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TW9 2TF *UK* | +----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+ | War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. | | When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. | \----------------------------------------------------------------------/
