Miles Bader writes: > "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [1] Equally effective would be to divide COPYING into two parts, the > > first part being labelled "The Purpose of the GNU GPL", and the second > > being labelled "The GNU General Public License", and containing only > > the legally enforceable terms. But this isn't going to happen either. > > Why not? Have you asked?
I've seen the question about separating out the non-license commentary posed (on the FSB mailing list IIRC) and answered by Richard Stallman. Richard considers the preamble and other commentary about the philosophy of the GPL to be an essential part of the license. I don't think he would accept a GPL stripped of its advocacy role, even if aggregated into a COPYING file that also contained an appropriate polemic. I mean, really, can you see Richard adopting language like that in Larry Rosen's Open Software License or a Creative Commons ShareAlike License for the GPLv4? :-) _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
