Alexander Terekhov scripsit: > Are you saying that your license allows GPL-forking? I think that > it does allow things like distribution of GPL'd patches... but the > resulting/originating derivative works would fall under multiple > licenses -- the GPL for modifications and the ASL for all the > "remaining" portions from the original work.
Well, no. There are three cases: A. Patches are not an original work of authorship (because they are too trivial): the resulting derivative work can be licensed in any way that's compatible with the original. B. Patches are an original work of authorship: B-1. The original work's license is GPL-compatible: the resulting derivative work is licensed under the GPL. B-2. The original work's license is not GPL-compatible: the patches cannot be applied, or at least the result cannot be distributed. > (with respect to reciprocation) licenses like the OSL and the CPL > (and also the GPL) say that patches must be distributed under the > original license even if, apart from referencing, they do NOT > contain anything related to (copied from) the original work. This is only so if patches are themselves derivative works of the original. IMHO (IANAL, TINLA) they are not, and any parts of the original that appear inside a patch (a unified diff, e.g.) constitutes fair use and/or de minimis use of the original. The stock example is that the _C Answer Book_ is not a derivative work of K & R, even though it just contains answers to the questions in K & R, and therefore is meaningless without it. -- Her he asked if O'Hare Doctor tidings sent from far John Cowan coast and she with grameful sigh him answered that www.ccil.org/~cowan O'Hare Doctor in heaven was. Sad was the man that word www.reutershealth.com to hear that him so heavied in bowels ruthful. All [EMAIL PROTECTED] she there told him, ruing death for friend so young, algate sore unwilling God's rightwiseness to withsay. _Ulysses_, "Oxen" -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3