Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote:
> > You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights
> > granted by the GPL*.  But there are already such restrictions, and you
> > cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder.
> > Hence you cannot comply with the license and the work is
> > undistributable.
> A licensee can't, but the copyright holder can. Their license is NOT the
> GPL, but GPL + exceptions & restrictions. That is perfectly valid, just not
> GPL compatible. The exception they have adds extra freedom, and I believe
> the one restriction they add is DFSG-free. [...]

First, I think b is not an exception but a restriction.

Adding any restrictions to plain GPL results in an invalid licence as in

That isn't much different to using the plain GPL with an OpenSSL-like
licence - both licences are DFSG-free, but we can't satisy both of them
simultaneously without additional permission on the GPL side.  Of course
a copyright holder of the entire work could still copy and distribute
and so on because they don't need a licence but we can't because we
can't satisfy both of those restrictions simultaneously.

The copyright holder could make a new licence out of the GPL, as
permitted by the FSF, but they have not done so.  I think they should
use the plain GPL, because I dislike licence proliferation.

I'm surprised that Red Hat have produced an inconsistent licence and I'm
surprised that GPL+restrictions isn't widely-known as non-free.

Hope that explains,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to