On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 05:03:59PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote: > I just noticed my remark in parenthesis is irrelevant, 2b clearly talks > about licensing under the terms of this License, it's very clear derivative > works must be licensed under the GPL.
Thank you. > Now if your interpretation is correct why can't 3a be clear and easy to > understand like 2b is? That is why doesn't 3a say: > > Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, > which must be licensed as a whole under the terms of Section 1 and 2 of this > license... The parenthetical note in Section 0 already covers this aspect, since the executable or object is a modification of the source. Section 3 is only concerned with *additional* requirements. > > Well I disagree I think 2b requires derivative works to be licensed > > under the entire GPL not just part of it. > > Raul I think your interpretation of the GPL is wrong. I think I see the distinction you're trying to make. I think you're trying to say that you can distribute a collective work based on a GPLed Program without the distribution of that collective work being under the control of the GPL. And, the mechanism you're trying to propose involves distributing the collective work as a whole such that it does not contain a notice from the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the GPL. Is this true? If this isn't true, I don't see that this distinction you're trying to make has any practical legal consequences. -- Raul
