Re: Licenses for non-software entities
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
> > You have heard incorrectly. The GPL comes with this immutable
> > license:
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> > Version 2, June 1991
> >
> > Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
> > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> > of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
> > ______________________________________________________________________
>
> Right, but if it came with a licence like this:
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> Version <mumble>, June <mumble>
>
> Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
> This licence is covered by the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE.
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> We might understand what was going on (being well versed in recursion) but
> most of the legal profession would probably start giggling hysterically, and
> have to go for a lie down to recover.
>
> It really doesn't matter how ``right'' a recursive license might seem to us,
> if the result is something that is unenforcible, because the lawyers don't
> understand it.
But it doesn't need to be that complex. The GPL doesn't need to be under
copyleft, just a sensible copyright.
IMHO, the GPL should simply say 'Anyone may freely distribute verbatim
copies of this document, as well as derived works, as long as any derived
license clearly indicates its heritage, and also indicates that it is
unaffiliated with the GPL'. Or something like that.
RMS has been heard to say something (this came up on -devel or -policy
shortly after I became a maintainer, a month or two ago) claiming that you
can copy any pieces of legal text. Marcus has promised to post here
shortly explaining that, I think.
My step-father is a lawyer, in the UK, and he says that there is no
special exclusion for copyright on licenses - i.e. licenses can be
copyrighted, and that copyright is enforceable. I'll speak to him again
about it, but that was definitely the story last time I asked..
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: