GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Seems extremely unlikely that this would give a license to change other license
or copyright documents. Or that could possible be the intended effect. I doubt
it would be legal/ethical/whatever to take something GPL-licensed and
re-license it as BSD-licensed (except with explicit consent of the
copyright/etc owner(s)).
I wonder what the reaction would be if everybody started releasing their own
demented and perverted versions of the GPL ;)
>On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 10:25:44PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>| > | While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to
>BSD-licensed
>| > | code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar "share
>| > | alike" license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's
>| > | perfectly legal. Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with the
>| > | GPL, there are perfectly acceptable social goals achieved only by
>| > | releasing under the GPL or a similar license.
>| >
>| > I'd say that it goes against the GPL. Yes, the GPL, not the BSD
>| > license (or the ISC license), GPL. Theo already quoted the relevant
>| > bits, but I'll quote them again :
>| >
>| > For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
>| > gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
>| > you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
>| > source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
>| > rights.
>|
>| 1. that's in the preamble, which establishes the spirit
>| 2. 4 paragraphs below you read:
>|
>| The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
>| modification follow.
>|
>| 3. later on you learn the "precise term" which is "under the terms of this
>| License"
>|
>| So no, you're wrong. Don't bother defending your point of view, it's a
>waste
>| of time to both of us, more to you who will write it. :)
>
>First you establish a spirit. Then you go on totally ignoring this
>spirit in your "precise terms". Exactly why would you establish this
>spirit in the first place ?
>
>It's in the license, right ? You say yourself that it establishes
>spirit. Why not uphold this spirit ? It goes against *the spirit* of
>the GPL, so I would pose that it goes against the GPL and that perhaps
>the "precise terms" are misworded, missing the spirit as set forth in
>the preamble.
>
>I may be wrong there, but *that* is so utterly, completely and totally
>wrong that it is mindbogging why there is so much code released under
>so much verbiage which we now call the GPL.
>
>"You are my brother in spirit, but i'll steal from you anyway and
>totally ignore the spirit."
>
>You're not about free software.
>
>Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
>
>--
>>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
>+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
> http://www.weirdnet.nl/
>
>[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
