Steve Langasek wrote:
WTF, seriously? Reading this makes me want to go write some new code,
license it under the GPLv3 with some random and arbitrary prohibition, and
watch someone at the FSF try to argue that the additional restriction has no
legal force.
Not non-free, just incredibly goofy; I understand the motivation, I just
don't see how anyone would actually think this would address the problem.
It certainly addresses the problem. Let's look at the two possibilities:
Before:
GPL (either explicitly or implicitly): you can do X
Restriction: you can't do X
Result - conflict and confusion; non-redistributable code
After:
GPL (either explicitly or implicitly): you can do X
GPL: If I say you can't do X, you can ignore me
Restriction: you can't do X
Result - the license is consistent, although it has one part which
nullifies another part. This is similar to clauses of the form "The
previous part of this clause does not apply if you are wearing blue
underwear".
If you (in your example) license under GPLv3 + restriction, then by
picking GPLv3 you are giving me, the recipient of the code, permission
to remove the restriction. If you didn't want to give me that
permission, you shouldn't have used GPLv3 - just as if you didn't want
to give me permission to link my code with the Affero GPL (to take one
example of many), you shouldn't have used GPLv3.
Gerv
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
