Mon Jul 16 13:05:00 GMT 2007
email@example.com (Richard Kenner) writes:
> The problem isn't convincing somebody it's *different*, but to convince
> them that there's a reason the license is what it supposedly says it is!
Seems simple: the COPYING file contains the conditions, and all files
have the same as well. And it's all directly from the copyright holder.
Now the copyright holder says the licence is not what the COPYING
file and individual files say, but rather it's a new licence which
wasn't mentioned anywhere at all.
> It's critical to understand that copyright and license agreements in files
> have *no legal significance whatsoever* except *possibly* to try to
> establish what was in the mind of the author.
What is significant then?
> It's likely true that if they FSF were to "distribute" software in the
> sense of mailing somebody a CD and there was no license on paper, you could
> *probably* indeed rely on the license within the CD as being definitive.
What the difference between a CD and, for example, FTP or CVS etc?
> True, but irrelevant, as I said in my previous email: a patch is a derived
> work of the file it patches, so there's not much real meaning in talking
> about the license status of a patch in isolation.
More information about the Gcc