Glenn Maynard writes: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:54:18AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >> However, it's probably worth noting that there's a big difference between >> [a] using the GPL verbatim and providing some additional license, and >> [b] using some other license which happens to include terms from the GPL. >> >> This thread was based on an instance of [a]. [When this thread started, >> that instance was non-distributable because of a silly mistake. It has >> since been fixed.] >> >> I would hope that this is obvious -- we'd have serious problems if it >> were not. > > I'm still slightly confused. How can the intent of the license have > been that the "modifications you submit are ours" clause have been a > separate license? License to what? If it's a separate license, it > seems to have no binding force at all; if it's a separate license, > I'd imagine we could simply remove it with impunity and avoid the > confusion (which I'd doubt). It seems to me that it was intended to be > an condition added to the GPL.
Jesse Vincent wrote[1] debian-legal to clarify that it was "not intended to be an amendment to the GPL." I am not sure why BPS expects it to have legal effect, but I think that's a problem for them to consider. [1]- http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00003.html > I'm not getting into the "self-contained GPL" argument here; I'm only > talking about intent. I suppose asking upstream would be a better > approach ... Indeed, and it worked. Michael Poole
