[OT?] GPL v3 FUD, was For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)

[Chris Travers]

On Nov 30, 2007 6:09 PM, Chris Travers <chris.travers at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Nov 30, 2007 5:50 PM, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> >  Requiring copies to be verbatim is against what the GPL protects:
> > allowing modifications.
> >
> >
> No, I didn't say that.
>
> I said that you can't change the license on work you don't own anyway.
> Merely including it verbatim doesn't even raise that question.
>
> And I didn't read Diane's license as forbidding *modifications* to be
> licensed under the GPL.  It just said "this code" which I read to be the
> original verbatim contribution.
>


Furthermore, if it is unclear how one could include it by this reading,
consider that one could add a notice at the top of the file:
The following file is based on work by [Author] under the following license.
(Original version available at [url].)  The changes we have made to the file
we have released under the GPL.  We do not claim any rights beyond those of
redistribution and preparation of derivative works to the original elements
still in this work.

I still see no problem.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20071130/75580630/attachment.html>