Kyle Moffet wrote:
> But see, even assuming the really odd case of a project consisting of
> one file, the GPL, that project would be completely GPL compatible.
> As the license specifies the licensing terms for the project (IE: the
> GPL), it may not legally be modified _even_ _under_ _copyright_ _law_
> (because it's the project license). As a result, it is that the GPL
> document may also be GPL licensed (because the only restrictions
> therein are automatically implied by copyright law in the first
> place).
That's just not true. There is no reason under copyright law why the author
of a program could not modify its license. However, the GPL explicitly
prohibits *anyone* from modifying it.
The reason you can't modify the GPL, even we assume the GPL is licensed
under the GPL, is because the GPL says you can't modify the GPL.
Andrew Wade wrote:
> As a practical matter, even if the GPL is technically GPL-incompatible,
> the chances of anyone objecting to their GPLed code rubbing shoulders
> with the GPL is remote.
It is logically impossible for the GPL to be GPL-incompatible. To be
GPL-incomptabile, a license would have to contain requirements or
restrictions not found in the GPL. How could the GPL possibly do that?
DS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
