In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If they had wanted something stronger, they could have easily written > > the license to define modification as being any change from the original. > > No, they cannot, because as rjack points out, the courts > have decided that a copyright license can only prohibit that > which is already disallowed under copyright absent any license. > The only thing the GPL (and AGPL) can do is grant you extra > freedoms.
They aren't require to stick to using a bare copyright license. They could instead make the license a contract (like almost every other free software/open source license...), and then there would be no problem with prohibiting things that are otherwise allowed under copyright law. There's a good discussion in Rosen's book on open source licensing of why it is best to make your open source licenses be contracts. -- --Tim Smith _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
