Andrew Ho [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Sent: Tuesday, 25 March 2003 2:54 AM > To: openhealth-list @ minoru-development . com > Subject: General Patent Pool License (GPPL), was Re: Non-GPL patent pool > > On 24 Mar 2003, Tim Churches wrote: > ... > > > The GPL can change over time. So, currently, we are talking about the > > > removal of Terms and Conditions #7 (from version 2 of GPL). > > > > The GPL is copyright FSF and is not itself subject to an open source > > license. Thus, you can't just delete parts of it which you don't like, > > even if you change the name. > > Tim, > > I think this falls under fair-use. :-)
Absolutely not! Deleting 5% and keeping 95% is not fair use. > > > In fact, the GPL specifically disallows this: " Everyone is permitted > > to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but > > changing it is not allowed." > > We are not copying it or changing it. We are merely referencing it. Goodness me! By deleting one section, you are changing it. > > ... > > > Thus you need to write a new license, > > Reverse engineering the GPL is un-productive and irreverent. I hope to > avoid this. > > > or use something else which does permit modification. The Mozilla > > Public License allows derivative works of itself > ... > > Maybe - but I still prefer to reference the GPL - even if just for > historical reasons. At this stage, I give up,. Andrew. I am no longer interested in your patent pool idea since you refuse to acknowledge that you cannot use the GPL, or even refer to the GPL, for a purpose to which the GPL's authors, the FSF, are implacably opposed. I won't be party to anything which ignores their wishes and stated intentions in such a manner. Over and out from me on your patent pool idea. Tim C
