"IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" <umlae...@debian.org> writes:
> also, they figure that a license "GPL+exceptions" is much easier for > their audience to *understand* (given that they are already familiar > with the GPL, they only have to parse and understand the additional > exceptions) than a new license (even if it is just changing the > license name, without altering the actual terms). These further restrictions are not accurately described as “exceptions”, though. The GPLv2 explicitly uses that term to refer only to additional *freedoms from* copyright restriction: exceptional further freedoms the recipient has under the license terms. Attempting to apply additional *restrictions*, though, results in incompatibility with the GPLv2, and the result is no valid licese to the recipient at all. > - they could dual-license the work under "GPL+exceptions" (to spare > their happy audience) and under a "Linux Sampler License" (which would > be the same but under a different name) The combination, as discussed, is not a valid license the recipient can coherently make use of under copyright law. So that's basically a misleading way to effectively grant no license. If they want to grant a set of license terms more restrictive than the GNU General Public License, they have no permission from the FSF to use that name for the license terms. > that was 1 week ago and i haven't received any further answer. i'm > under the impression that i will not receive any more answer on this > topic from their side. Thank you very much for your efforts to date! -- \ “Beware of and eschew pompous prolixity.” —Charles A. Beardsley | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers