Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 6 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > Nevertheless, I do not think it is the FSF's intention to forbid > > > otherwise GPL-compatible licenses from requiring that their own license > > > texts be preserved in GPL'ed derivative works. > > > > It's certainly not the intention; such a reading is obviously > > fallacious given the FSF's own practice. (Many parts of the C > > library, for example, retain the copyrights [including the "don't > > remove this" clause] of the upstream origins; the LGPL and the GPL do > > not differ in this regard.) > > I realise that it's not the FSF's intention. But I still don't see how they > reconcile it with the actual text of the GPL. Does anyone have any insight > into this, or should I just mail them?
Because there is really just not an issue. Are you trying to make up issues where none exist? Are you genuinely confused? Perhaps, as I suspect, you are trying to read licenses as if they were computer programs. Licenses are interpreted by humans, who are allowed (nay, required!) to use judgment.