16-Dec-03 13:34 Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Dec 13, 2003, at 23:09, Alexander Cherepanov wrote: >> The hole in the explicit wording seems to be so clear that I start >> doubting it is just an oversight. Maybe it's normal for sections of a >> license to trump each other?
> If one section of a legal document is more specific than an other, it > is normal to follow the more specific one. So, if GPL 3 covers a > specific modification, and GPL 2 covers any modification, and you do > that specific modification, you follow section 3, not section 2. > In general, you don't interpret a legal document to make an entire > section irrelevant. A court should ask, What did the FSF intend by > putting in a section 3? And they will come to the answer: If you > distribute object code, you must follow section 3. The question seems to be more like that: is it intentional or is it an oversight? In any case it's probably better to correct this because it leads to the situation when all kinds of interpretaions arise as debian-legal archive shows. Maybe in GPL v3... > The only time I think they would allow otherwise would be if the > copyright holder distributed object code under the GPL. I don't know > what they'd do then. Agreed. Sasha