On Sunday 03 June 2007 09:05:05 Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:38:09 -0600 Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> > Well, maybe that is changing ... the latest draft says in the
> > Preample:
> >
> > "The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for
> > software and other kinds of works."
> Section 0. of the GNU GPL *v2* states, in part:
> |   0. This License applies to any program or other work [...]
> |                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work [...]
> |                                                  ^^^^^^^
> I think even the GNU GPL *v2* was designed with the applicability to
> non-program works in mind.  It was certainly designed *primarily* for
> programs, but also in such a way to be applicable to any work of
> authorship.
> At least, that's my understanding after reading the license text so many
> times...

True, but it does seem that that the [draft] GPLv3 features this a bit more 
prominently (first line in the preamble, more clear in the definitions, 
some of the non-source conveying options are less ambiguous now with 
non-program works, etc). 

Anyway, not that it particularly matters——GPLv2 in practice already works 
pretty well for almost all non-program works——it was mostly just an 
interesting observation. =)

Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094  0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply via email to