From owner-freebsd-chat Tue May 16 13: 3:40 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 863A537B53B for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 13:03:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Received: from localhost (narvi@localhost) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA73555; Tue, 16 May 2000 22:02:27 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:02:26 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi To: David Schwartz Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: RE: Why are people against GNU? WAS Re: 5.0 already? In-Reply-To: <002701bfbf62$9dbb9600$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 16 May 2000, David Schwartz wrote: > > > > No you can't do that, since you don't have permission to. > > > The law regarding > > > copyright is not that you can do anything you aren't > > > specifically prohibited > > > from doing. You may only do what you are specifically allowed to do. > > > > > > The GPL would be worthless if people could preface it with > > > any clauses they > > > wanted to that modified its terms in any way they wanted. The > > > instructions > > > for how to apply the GPL to your own code _IS_ the distribution > > > agreement. > > > It is the only document that grants you the right to distribute the GPL. > > > This can't be true. If this were true, teh perl dual licence under GPL and > > asrtistic would not be possible. > > Since the artistic license is not a modified GPL, your reply is a > non-sequiter. You should also note that any contributions to perl submitted > under the GPL cannot be added to the artistic license version. > The perl licence is an aggregate licence 'Perl may be copied only under the terms of either the Artistic License or the GNU General Public License, which may be found in the Perl 5.0 source kit. ' This is something (GPL + other conditions/allowances/claims prefixing it) you have claimed not possible. > You would be right if the person who dual-licensed perl in the first place > had the ability to maintain the dual license. For example, if RMS permitted > him to add a clause that said that if anybody released contributions to the > GPL-licensed version, they implicitly agree to allow those changes to be > distributed with the artistic license version. > What's the point in arguing with you if you actually don't even bother to look up the basics about things you are arguing about, in this case how perl is licenced? > But since this is not the case, the two licenses are completely independent > and the two versions could lead different lives. One doesn't modify or > change the other. > Get a grip on the real situation. Research matters as they exist in the Real World (tm). > DS > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message