On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, �smund Skj�veland wrote: >Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:15:33 +0200 >From: �smund Skj�veland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; > protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="liOOAslEiF7prFVr" >Subject: Re: License of cdrdao will be changed > >> 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.
Absolutely. In order to do that, every person who has ever contributed source code to cdrdao needs to be contacted, since they own the copyright on their contributions. Simply get them to agree to the change of license terms, and then the license can be changed. It's probably quite a hassle to track down X number of people however, and probably much simpler to remove the code which potentially conflicts, and simply replace it with real GPL code. -- Mike A. Harris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
