[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+

From: Thomas Lord
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:11:18 -0800
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20060808)

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I've seen the question about separating out the non-license commentary
posed (on the FSB mailing list IIRC) and answered by Richard Stallman.
Richard considers the preamble and other commentary about the
philosophy of the GPL to be an essential part of the license.  I don't
think he would accept a GPL stripped of its advocacy role, even if
aggregated into a COPYING file that also contained an appropriate

I think that's a misreading.

I think there's actually a theory of jurisprudence behind the inclusion of
the preamble (and a good theory, at that).

Basically, a clear *intent* is essential to judging a contract in all but
the very least ambiguous aspects.  This contract has to be interpreted
across a lot of jurisdictions.  What you call the "polemic" is pretty vital.


I mean, really, can you see Richard adopting language like that in
Larry Rosen's Open Software License or a Creative Commons ShareAlike
License for the GPLv4? :-)

Gnu-arch-users mailing list

GNU arch home page:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]