Brian Sniffen:
>Thanks for the response -- I hadn't noticed that phrasing before.
>But if I give *you* a copy of Sniffmacs under the Sniffen GPL,
>wouldn't you then be bound only to give others the SGPL, not the GGPL
>with its Preamble?
Now we get into a subtle point of copyright law. This is how
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
>>OK. I have a copy of Emacs here, licensed to me under the GNU GPL2.
>>I have made some modifications to it, and updated the changelogs and
>>history notes. I wish to give it to a friend. Section 2b requires
>>that I dis
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>OK. I have a copy of Emacs here, licensed to me under the GNU GPL2.
>I have made some modifications to it, and updated the changelogs and
>history notes. I wish to give it to a friend. Section 2b requires
>that I distribute my new program, Sniffmacs, "under the terms
Keith Dunwoody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> OK. I have a copy of Emacs here, licensed to me under the GNU GPL2.
>> I have made some modifications to it, and updated the changelogs and
>> history notes. I wish to give it to a friend. Section 2b requires
>> that I dist
Keith Dunwoody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe the answer is no. The appropriate part of the GPL is
> section 2b.
>
> 2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
> thereof, to be licensed as a
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
OK. I have a copy of Emacs here, licensed to me under the GNU GPL2.
I have made some modifications to it, and updated the changelogs and
history notes. I wish to give it to a friend. Section 2b requires
that I distribute my new program, Sniffmacs, "under the terms of t
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we're talking about use of the GNU GPL as such, the preamble may
> not be removed. It is, in effect, a sort of invariant section for
> inclusion in all GPL-covered software.
>
> By contrast, you can make a modified license (which is not the GPL)
>
> > And that seems OK to me. Although you can probably restrict yourself to
> > the "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" part.
This brief citation does not show what case he was talking about.
If we're talking about use of the GNU GPL as such, the preamble may
not be removed. It is, in effect, a sort
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 03:13:14PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOmitPreamble
[...]
> > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
>
> This is not clear at all. The preamble is integral and may not be removed,
> and the license permits only ve
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 08:35:24PM +0200, Mika Fischer wrote:
> > CC RMS: could this please be clarified? It's causing repeat
> > confusion, and nobody knows if we're really allowed to remove the
> > preamble and/or create derivative licenses of the GPL.
>
> I think the following is quite clear:
* Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 19:16]:
> You can remove the preamble.
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
Yes, but that creates a different license and that is not wanted in this
case.
> CC RMS: could this please be clarified? It's causing repeat
> confusio
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 06:02:50PM +0200, Mika Fischer wrote:
> > And that seems OK to me. Although you can probably restrict yourself to
> > the "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" part.
>
> I'm sorry but this is wrong. You have to include the whole GPL as you
> did.
>
> cf. http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-f
12 matches
Mail list logo
