> This is how the GPL protects freedom of the code, by ensuring > that when you've got GPL'd code, no one can remove any of the > rights that the GPL provides you with. They cannot restrict you > in any way beyond what the GPL license states. That means that > they can not say "This program is GPL licensed except for section > 4 and 7 of the GPL". The GPL does not permit them to do that.
Is it correct to speak of it as the GPL if it is modified? Let's rephrase a bit. Everybody speaks of whether the author of cddao can legally license his code under a GPL with added restrictions. I think this is the wrong way of wording it. It's better to say that the lisence is based on GPL, but the sections foo and bar have been changed/removed. It makes absolutely no sense to me that the author and copyright holder can't do this. In short, modified GPL -> lisence based on GPL != GPL. -- �smund Skj�veland (OpenPGP keyid 54B975CE)
msg03436/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
