> > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:18:04AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: > >> In exactly the same place(s) that it is in gcc. In the source files, > >> in the output from --version, etc.
Raul Miller wrote: > > Has metafont been put under the GPL? I hadn't realized that. In that > > case, I need to find another example. On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 07:14:21AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: > No. The GPL requires that the notices be kept intact. Not that they be a I was looking for a "patches only" license, and my memory wasn't up to the job. Replace "metafont" with some software under a "patches only" license (or, any license with some restriction not imposed by the GPL -- a "must rename" license is probably enough), to see the point I was trying to get across. Or just read the GPL and consider what happens in the case where a DFSG license imposes some restriction not imposed by the GPL, and where someone wants to combine software under the two licenses. > complete explanation of all copyright holders, nor a complete > description of the licensing terms. If it did, the Linux kernel would > be significantly bigger (something like over 10000 (C) notices). The problem comes when the licensing terms conflict. That said, I don't have any reason to believe it's possible to have licensing terms which aren't explicitly stated in the license on the software. If I receive software with a license, I have no reason to act as if there were some other licensing terms which I haven't been told about. [If that doesn't make sense to you, re-read what you wrote.] -- Raul
