On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:04:09 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:

> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >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.
> As, presumably, they do. Hence "GPL plus restrictions".

If it's a license derived from the GNU GPL, it cannot refer to the GPL
terms, but must copy and modify them instead.
And it cannot be named GPL or mention GNU.

See  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

It's not what has been done by Red Hat.
They licensed their work under the GNU GPL v2 + additional restrictions.
This is different from licensing under a FooBar license derived from the

> >
> >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,
> Thing is, the licence, as granted by the !copyright holder! is not 
> "GPL", but "GPL plus restrictions".

That is the problem!

> The result can't be invalid,
> because  it is granted by the copyright holder, and is clear as to
> what is  granted.

It's not clear at all, because it is self-contradictory.

In section 6 of the GNU GPL v2, it's clearly stated that no further
restrictions *beyond the ones found in the GPL terms* can be imposed.
But such restrictions are imposed, at the same time.

> A "GPL plus restrictions" is only invalid when the GPL is granted by
> one  entity, and the restrictions imposed by a different one.

That case is not a invalid license, it's a copyright violation, which is
a different beast!

 Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpDZDqvdclXU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to