On 22/01/2008, Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > There is no way to satisfy both GPLv2 and the addition, so there is no > > permission to distribute. > > I don't think it can be read that way. The GPLv2 only talks about > 'further restrictions' - it doesn't say that the license you get from > the licensor is the GPL and only the GPL; it's not, it's the license > that the author put on the work (which is GPL+bits)
If the bits are additional permissions - like a poor man's LGPL, used by GNU Classpath and so on - that is fine. If the bits are additional restrictions - like Red Hats fonts - that is a deal killer, because, as you clearly say, > The added clauses by the licensor are not severable from the rest of the > license - although "GPL + bits" is a fine way to describe the license, > it's a single set of terms and conditions. It's not "distribute via GPL, > but then tack on these extra bits every time", it's "distribute via GPL > +bits". And section 6 of GPLv2 says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." Which means that, as MJ says, > > There is no way to satisfy both GPLv2 and the addition, so there is no > > permission to distribute. -- Regards, Dave _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list Fsfe-uk@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
