Subject: Re: [OT?] GPL v3 FUD, was For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)
From: "Chris Travers" <chris.travers@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:09:34 -0800
Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:09:34 -0800
On Nov 30, 2007 5:50 PM, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

>  Requiring copies to be verbatim is against what the GPL protects:
> allowing modifications.
>
>
No, I didn't say that.

I said that you can't change the license on work you don't own anyway.
Merely including it verbatim doesn't even raise that question.

And I didn't read Diane's license as forbidding *modifications* to be
licensed under the GPL.  It just said "this code" which I read to be the
original verbatim contribution.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers




On Nov 30, 2007 5:50 PM, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

Requiring copies to be verbatim is against what the GPL protects: allowing modifications.


No, I didn't say that.

I said that you can't change the license on work you don't own anyway.  Merely including it verbatim doesn't even raise that question.

And I didn't read Diane's license as forbidding *modifications* to be licensed under the GPL.  It just said "this code" which I read to be the original verbatim contribution.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers