On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 01:28:04AM +0100, Dave Chapman wrote: > IMO, the license text (i.e. the COPYING file) does not form part of the > program (which is the only argument I've heard against para. 9 being > applicable) - it's the license that accompanies the program. > > If you think that para. 9 of the GPL does not apply in Rockbox's case, > in which situation would it apply? Are you saying the FSF wrote a > clause which is made obsolete by referring to the COPYING file (which > must be included with all GPL'd software)?
FSF may be able to give us legal counsel. IMHO a developer should contact them and ask for this. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is (IIRC) the address to which questions regarding GPL should be posted to. If they don't know what the situation is in Europe, they can point us to (or consult themselves) FSF Europe. If someone does this, please CC the mailing list. > I'm curious to know what other people think about this issue - as this > seems to me to be the first thing we have to agree on. I think that this doesn't have much to do with individual developer's opinions. Whether we should upgrade to GPLv3 or not is a separate question (I think we should), but I think that we shouldn't try to interpret GPL ourselves, if we are (and we seem to be) unsure. -- Tapio
