Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 10:59 +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > The need for imposing terms to mean changing terms rather than just > > associating the term with the action is not at all clear to me. > > Well, given that the license is coming from the licensor rather than the > licensee, I don't see what the licensee is doing which could be called > "impose" in any meaningful way - they're just distributing a binary (or > whatever). Is giving someone a copy of the software "imposing" it on > them? They don't even need a license in order to receive and run the > work really...
Giving someone a copy under the GPL+bits would be establishing those terms as something to be complied with, so I think it has the meaning of "impose", yes. Maybe this is something else to ask [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I'm not sure whether they'll reply "use GPLv3" and I'd rather wait until they answer the GPLv3 collection from [EMAIL PROTECTED] before asking something else of marginal interest to me at present. [...] > Potentially, Red Hat have a different interpretation here which more > closely follows what I'm arguing than yours. For example: > http://directory.fedoraproject.org/wiki/GPL_Exception_License_Text Yuck. Is there any additional term that Red Hat won't try to pass off as an exception? > By your reckoning, the last statement in that Exception (which I think > we'd all agree _is_ an exception ;) is effectively a no-op. [...] I'm not sure about the legality of it, but removing the Exception when you redistribute unmodified would be misleading others about the terms on the work. Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list Fsfe-uk@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk