David Starner wrote: > > I disagree. They explicitely state that they have always used > > the GPL, > > "While LyX has been released nominally under the GPL in the past, it has > in fact never been truly GPL." - From the clarification statement. > > That's an explicit statement that LyX was never truely under the GPL.
Not to me. It's an explanation that they have been using the GPL and that they understood that invalid clauses just didn't apply. Let's not beat this to death. We interpret their words differently. That's all. > > and that, legally, any clause that are inapplicable are > > rejected, whether they add a clarification paragraph or not. > I don't really get where you're getting this from. I think the point is > that they did add a clarification paragraph. I'd be happier with a clearer clarification for packages I maintain. I like Brian Ristuccia's <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> suggestion best. I was trying to reach the xforms web site to get the official company name of xforms owners, but http://bragg.phys.uwm.edu/xforms appears to be down and http://bloch.phys.uwm.edu/xforms is a dead link now. Peter
