Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> writes: > Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> wrote: >> On 2/22/2010 1:42 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> What matters is that the terms and conditions in the GPL are legally >>> valid, and have now been tested in an appeals court in the United States >>> of America. > >> That was the Artistic License, not the GPL, but good enough. > > Ah, thanks! I thought there was something a little wrong. Still, if > the artistic license holds up, the GPL'll be a doddle.
I don't see how that follows. They are licenses with a somewhat similar basic legal mechanism (based on copyright, granting additional permissions), but the actual license is quite different. So I see no base for the "AFPL holds -> GPL doddle" claim. I see no qualitative difference discussed that would support such a gradation. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
