After sitting down and reading this thing this morning, I've come to a
legal conclusion (which isn't legal advice :): This thing is a
disaster, written by an amateur. It's largely well done for an
amateurish work, but it still shows.
It doesn't seem to actually include what either rms or his critics say.
Particularly, the word "link" does not appear until the final
paragraph, in a suggestion to use the LGPL if linking is desired.
I'm trying to figure out which section prevents linking. It could be
the second full paragraph of section 2:
>These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
>identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
>and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
>themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
>sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
>distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
>on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
>this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
>entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Or it could be section 3, which seems to the "system binaries
exception":
>The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
>making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
>code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
>associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
>control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
>special exception, the source code distributed need not include
>anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
>form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
>operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
>itself accompanies the executable.
But I don't think that this "exception" covers materials that any
reasonable reading of the prior sentence governs.
Given the time constraints, we're stuck with our modified GPL for 1.0.
But I think we aslo want to make it clear under section 9 on revisions
to keep the spirit of the license that we plan to replace our
disclaimers with a complete revision. While it says that the FSF can
do this, our modifications put us in place to make the revisions.
To return to my prior suggestions, and Garths's requests, the sections
that I propose we specifically disclaim are:
a) the preamble,
b) The second full paragraph of section two (contagious & imperialistic
license). Maybe add language making clear that the lyx code has to
stay under the lyx license.
c) Section 3, second full paragraph. Replace universal code with "code
governed by this license"
d) "Everything from "How to Apply These TErms . . ." on
rick
--
