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
Thomas Esser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had done modifications of three files of that package and distributed
the changed files using the original filename. The author told me that
this violates his license. Actually, this only happened, because when
reading his license the first time, I
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
- 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
=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
While we're at it, there's a different issue in teTeX and TeXLive for
which I'd like to have some advice from -legal. ukhyphen.tex has now a
supposedly free license, but it has a broader renaming clause:
Wow, that's arrogant, not only reserving
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 the GPL.
I
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.
It may be
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, you can do
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 redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public
9 matches
Mail list logo
