Get ready....

[R. L. Kleeberger]

Quoting Derek J. Balling (dredd at megacity.org):
> No, I think a "LicenseGPL" should be created. :)   It allows you to copy
> the "meat" of the license, but not the name or identifying marks associated
> with it.
> 
> e.g., you would be free to copy the GPL in its entirety, then gut out
> "paragraph 10" if you so chose, but when you use it, you couldn't call it
> the GPL any more.

I think this is a bad thing.  If this idea were to be put in place it would
have the potential to harm and restrict someone's freedoms. 

For instance I could copy some freedom(s) from the GPL but not others.  I
could give my users the freedom to distribute but restrict there freedom by
not letting them modify it.  

The only way this idea would not restrict freedoms is to say "You may copy
specific wordings from this license, but in addition to your excerpt you
must also include the rest of the freedom's in accordance to the GNU GPL in
your own form.  No freedoms listed in the GNU GPL can be ommited."

-- 
rlk at cinternet.net
http://www.cinternet.net/~rlk
"This .sig was intentionally left blank."