- From: Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:34:12 -0800
- To: Federico Heinz <fheinz@vialibre.org.ar>
- CC: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Federico Heinz wrote: > Article 2 [of the GPLv2] says: > > "2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of > it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute > such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided > that you also meet all of these conditions: > > * a) [stuff irrelevant to this discussion -- FH] > > * b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part > thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties > under the terms of this License. [Note the recursion here! -- FH]" > > So I can use the code to create derivative works, as long as they are > distributed, if at all, under the GPL. This means that if I distribute > the code, I must grant the recipient the right to use *any part of my > code* in derivative works distributed, if at all, under GPL. > > The problem is that I can license my program under GPL all I want, but > it would be void, since I don't have the right to grant you the ability > to "modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus > forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such > modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above,". This is the crux of the matter. We probably need a lawyer or two to go over it and see if they agree with your interpretation. Anyone know a lawyer who won't get dizzy trying to interpret a recursive document? I wonder if a "for the purposes of implementing this standard, or as part of a work licensed under the GPL" amendment would fly. - Dan
Received on Thursday, 28 November 2002 16:34:17 UTC