Re: Option 3

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 03/22/2011 09:16 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> > > 
> > > I would still maintain that "Option 3" is not compatible with GPL
> > > though. While the license doesn't explicitly forbid copying the text
> > > under the license into another specification, it effectively forbids it
> > > by not allowing it. I'll note that GPL doesn't limit itself to "explicit
> > > restrictions", but rather restrictions in general.
> > 
> > Indeed. There are non-forking-related restrictions too, e.g. it doesn't
> > allow use in hardware devices, as far as I can tell. Lawrence never
> > publicly replied to my e-mail on the subject:
> > 
> >     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0209.html
> > 
> > (Search in particular for the bit where I quote the GPL FAQ.)
> 
> I encourage you to read this:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-psig/2011JanMar/0138.html

I did.


> If after reading that, if you have further questions about the GPL FAQ, 
> see the following for information on how to get more information:
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#LicensingMailingList

I have no questions about the GPL FAQ. Why do you think I do? I have 
questions about "Option 3", which is clearly incompatible with the GPL 
since the GPL applies to "The Program" which is defined as meaning any 
copyrightable work, whereas "Option 3" refers only to software, which 
excludes many classes of copyrightable works such as hardware. See the 
e-mail I cite above for more details.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 02:18:42 UTC