Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

[Brian Behlendorf]

Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> And anyone who has a copy of W+X or W' has two licenses, one from Person
> A (for that part that was W) and one from Person B (for W+X or W').
> Person A is not responsible in any respect for W+X or W'.

*Sigh*.  OK, now I get it.  W+X and W' has *two* licenses, one each to two
different parties.  The terms of *both* must be followed by Person C.

My common-sense, non-lawyer brain says that if person B says W+X or W' are
under the GPL, it's really "GPL to Person B plus AFL to Person A." It
appears to be Stallman's opinion, and it would be mine as well, that this
cannot be the case, as the GPL prevents "additional restrictions", without
a qualifier as to which party those restrictions are enforced by.

	Brian

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3