On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote: > But that particular issue is moot as far as this license goes. Since this > license does not even _attempt_ to modify the GPL, the interpretation of > the GPL is very clear and unambiguous: just as Brian says, the GPL forbids > this sort of thing (in particular, it forbids prospective distributors from > imposing or passing on additional restrictions).
That applies to works that have been licenses under the unamended GPL. We're talking about a work which has *not* been licensed under the unamended GPL. The uamended GPL has *no* force whatsoever on which license terms are legal for that program. The fact that the author choses a set of license terms that share some clauses with the unamended GPL does not make the unamended GPL have any say over his actions. He chose a different license than the unamended GPL, and that different license is the *only* thing that can allow or forbid anything. > Therefore, these terms _do_ contradict the GPL, That is irrelevant. The GPL is not in force for the program in question. > You may distribute this software, provided that in every instance > you both > (a) distribute it under the GPL, This is not what the license in question says. It specifically does *not* allow applying the unamended GPL to the program. -- Henning Makholm
