Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 20:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: [...] So I think it's misleading to refer to “modified versions of the GPL”, since modified versions aren't the GPL any more. If you want to permit an action in a license text, it would be best to be clear on what action it is you're permitting. Not quite. You just have to take out the preamble and modify the instructions for use. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL ...and call it by a name other than GPL! I am under the impression that this is what Ben meant, but I'll wait for him to clarify. You can still call it a modified version of the GPL. I think it depends on how clear you make it that the new license text was derived from the GPL, but it's not any version of the GPL, unless I misinterpret the FSF FAQ somehow... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/progs/scripts/pdebuild-hooks.html Need some pdebuild hook scripts? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpikTIV01xSC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes: ...and call it by a name other than GPL! I am under the impression that this is what Ben meant, but I'll wait for him to clarify. Right. My point is that it's not helpful to say “modified versions of the GPL” are allowed, since at that point the term “GPL” doesn't apply usefully. Any text can be considered a “modified version of the GPL”, given sufficient modification. Better to simplify that to just “any license terms, given the following conditions:” and be clear on exactly what kinds of license terms are acceptable. -- \ “Too many pieces of music finish too long after the end.” —Igor | `\ Stravinskey | _o__) | Ben Finney pgpvzk4iwtrX0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010, Dererk wrote: 1. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under the terms of the GPL version 2 as distributed here: 2. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under the terms of the GPL version 3, as found in the file COPYING and distributed here: 3. You may use, modify, and redistributed the software under any version of the GPL greater than 3. 4. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under a modified version of the GPL version 3 (or, at your option, a modified version of any higher-numbered version of the GPL) that places additional restrictions on advertising and labeling of the software, provided that all of the following conditions are met: d. All recipients of the software retain the ability to distribute the software under any subset they wish of conditions 1-3 of this license provided they remove the incoporated OpenSSL library. So I cannot combine a work licensed under this license with a work licensed under GPL3 + SSL exception because the latter does not allow downgrading to gpl2 (or upgrading to gpl3+). Is this intentional? -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100410130817.gq25...@anguilla.noreply.org
