Francesco Poli dijo [Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:50:53PM +0200]:
> I personally think it is indeed relevant.
>
> Let me try to explain.
> The term "further restrictions" is meant "with respect to the
> GPL terms", not "with respect to GPL terms + any terms added by the
> copyright holder".
> Hence rel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2015-10-08 16:32, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>
> Anyway, further discussing the matter won't clarify it much. The
> clear result, /methinks, is that we all agree this is DFSG-unfree.
> Whether it is distributable in non-free... Is subject to
> discussion
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:06:22 +0200 IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote:
[...]
> which throws us back to the question whether software under that
> license is distributable (in non-free) at or not.
Just to be clear, my own personal opinion is that
"GPLv2 + restrictions" is self-contradictory and
Gunnar Wolf writes:
> Francesco Poli dijo [Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:50:53PM +0200]:
> > One cannot comply with all these conditions at the same time. The
> > "GPL + further restrictions" license is therefore
> > self-contradictory.
>
> Right. But a content creator (in this case, a software author)
4 matches
Mail list logo
