[License-review] Sublicensing

[John Cowan]

Jim Wright scripsit:

> Perhaps so.  I'm just not sure the use of the word permissions
> without the word restrictions means you don't need to distribute the
> whole under the GPL, since the same sentence clearly states that
> distribution of "the whole must be on the terms of this License."

Oh, I don't think *that*.  The whole must indeed be distributed under
the GPL.  But that does not mean that each part must be also distributed
under the GPL, merely under a license that permits what the GPL permits.

> Reading "the whole" as really meaning only the original GPLed work,
> not actually the whole of the code,

I intend no such perverse reading.

> The words "terms of this License" are not at all the same as "having
> at least th e same permissions as this License" IMHO.

Indeed they are not, which is why I read the critical sentence as I
do.  "But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which
is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole [not the
parts] must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions [but not
restrictions] for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus
to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."  In other words, the
whole, singular work must be licensed under the GPL, but the licenses of
the parts must merely have the same permissions.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
Statistics don't help a great deal in making important decisions.
Most people have more than the average number of feet, but I'm not about
to start a company selling shoes in threes. --Ross Gardler