[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] fork with better wording, perha

From: Riley Baird
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] fork with better wording, perhaps ?
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 07:16:31 +1000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0

> Well, there are a lot of other problems with the license chooser in
> addition to that. It is pretty anti-copyleft. We submitted a patch to
> fix the factual description of the GPL and it was rejected.

What part of their description is untrue? This is all the information I
could find on the GPL on their website:

The GPL (V2 or V3) is a copyleft license that requires anyone who
distributes your code or a derivative work to make the source available
under the same terms. V3 is similar to V2, but further restricts use in
hardware that forbids software alterations.

Linux, Git, and WordPress use the GPL.

How to apply this license

Create a text file (typically named LICENSE or LICENSE.txt) in the root
of your source code and copy the text of the license into the file.

Note: The Free Software Foundation recommends taking the additional step
of adding a boilerplate notice to the top of each file. The boilerplate
can be found at the end of the license.


    Disclose Source
    License and copyright notice
    State Changes


    Commercial Use
    Patent Grant
    Private Use


    Hold Liable

> For example, the choice to present the GPL's protections as
> restrictions/requirements is a loaded one.

I don't think that saying that the protections are requirements is
loaded language. For example, "license and copyright notice" is held to
be a requirement, and this is still listen as a requirement on the MIT
license's page. (That being said, there are some requirements of the GPL
which they do not list, e.g. 2a and 2c of GPLv2)

reply via email to

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