On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote: > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [Defining terms in the license grant] is a bad idea.
I should note that this is not just defining terms in the license grant; it's either a null operation, or it adds a class things to object code which was not previously included. You could easily write a set of definitions which translated the GPL into an entirely different license.[0] > > If GPLv2 does not actually mean this, you are adding an additional > > restriction. If it does, you're just wasting time. Neither option > > is terribly useful. > > What the GPLv2 means is partly up to the intent of the persons > drafting that document, but the meaning *for a particular work* must > surely take strong influence from the intent of the party granting > license to that work. That's perfectly fine, but it doesn't influence the license of any other work, which is exactly why this is a bad idea. You're free to add any additional restrictions to your GPLed work that you want,[1] whether through "interpretations" or by changing the GPL itself. That doesn't obviate the need for you to comply with the terms of GPLed works which you do not own the copyright of. Don Armstrong 1: Though of course, the distributability of such works by anyone but the copyright holder may be an open question. -- No amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free [...] You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him. -- Robert Heinlein _Revolt in 2010_ p54 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]