On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 04:14:15PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
This has come up several times, so I'm CCing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get their
take on this. FSF folks: please ignore the documentation aspect above;
I'm interested in the general problem of people specifying the preferred
form for
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
The GPL very deliberately does not specify
the preferred form for modification, and authors shouldn't do so (at
least not in a legally-binding way or an attempt to interpret the GPL).
Right. I think there is no harm in saying
Glenn Maynard wrote:
The GPL very deliberately does not specify
the preferred form for modification, and authors shouldn't do so (at
least not in a legally-binding way or an attempt to interpret the GPL).
Right. I think there is no harm in saying My preferred form for modification
is the
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 03:22:53PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Note, also, that the GPL says preferred form for modification, not
the form for modification preferred by the original author.
Indeed. Specifying the form the original author preferred should not act as
a
restriction,
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 09:49:08PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Let's assume a piece of technical documentation (standalone, i.e not
part of a software package; something like selfhtml or LaTeX's lshort),
is licensed under GPL, with an additional text stating what the
preferred form for
5 matches
Mail list logo
