"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Because on the one hand the copyright holder says that no further
restrictions (beyond the ones found in the GPL terms) can be imposed on
recipients (see GPLv2, section 6).
On the other hand he himself adds one such re
On Fri, 26 May 2006 13:53:52 +0200 Frank Küster wrote:
> "Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > Also it makes the work GPL-incompatible, which kindof
> > defeats the point of using the GPL.
>
> I also thought about this. But isn't it de-facto GPL-compatible: Once
> you've renamed it, y
On Fri, 26 May 2006 00:05:09 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
>
> "Thomas Esser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
> > Questions:
> >- is it valid to refer to GPL and add such severe restrictions in
> > an appendix?
>
> It is legal AFAIK (IANAL), but is relly poor form.
I don't agree.
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Questions:
>>- is it valid to refer to GPL and add such severe restrictions in
>> an appendix?
>
> It is legal AFAIK (IANAL), but is relly poor form.
Agreed.
> Also it makes the work GPL-incompatible, which kindof
> defeats the point of using th
- is it valid to refer to GPL and add such severe restrictions in
an appendix?
No.
Trying to add extra restrictions onto the GNU GPL results
in a sort of self-contradiction, where it is not clear
what the license of a modified version should be.
- is this a "free soft
"Thomas Esser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
the teTeX package contains files which use the following license:
COPYRIGHT
=
This macro package (csplain.ini, il2code.tex, csfonts.tex, hyphen.lan,
plaina4.tex) is free software; you can redis
6 matches
Mail list logo
