GPL for JS libraries (Was: Re: Redefining GPL?)

Arnoud Engelfriet arnoud at
Sat Dec 2 13:52:31 UTC 2006

David Woolley wrote:
> > A change of technical form that does not change any term is not changing
> * the GPL itself. So you can include the GPL as an HTML file if you like,
> * or as a Word or OpenOffice document, or as an embedded resource shown
> I'm pretty sure that a Word document wouldn't be acceptable as the file
> format specification isn't openly available (one has to access it in
> a way which puports to create a sort of non-disclosure agreement, and,
> in particular doesn't permit the specification to be used to create a
> free Word document viewer).

We're not talking about putting *source code* in a proprietary
format. This is about the *GPL terms themselves*. You have to
pass on a copy of the GPL along with the program, but I don't
see why you couldn't do that in Word format. 

Of course if the recipient can't read that, then you'll have to 
use something else. But that is not specific to Word: if I
give someone a Postscript version and he can't read that, I'll 
have to send a plain text version instead.


Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies:

More information about the License-discuss mailing list