[mdlug] GPL

[Robert Adkins]

bob dion wrote:
> Robert Adkins wrote:
>   
>> Bob Dion wrote:
>>     
>>>  > If RMS never compromises how did we get the LGPL? That was a compromise
>>>  > > on Stallman's part.
>>>      If someone wanted to write the LGPL, would they have really needed
>>> his blessing?
>>>
>>> Apparently so, cause that's what happened. If someone wanted to release 
>>> their own version of the GPL I guess they could, but than again it could 
>>> not be call *GPL* .
>>>
>>> BD
>>>       
>>     I wouldn't expect it to be called the GPL.
>>
>>     Although, it strikes me a bit funny that his blessing would be 
>> needed as it seems in rather stark contrast to what the GPL is all 
>> about: "Take what you want/need, make your changes, share the results." 
>> (Unless I missed the part where RMS is the be-all end-all of all GPL 
>> software development...)
>>
>>     
>
> Why funny, because the GPL license, (this is not software), it self is 
> protected by current copy right laws just like all GLP software?
>
>   
    A license is a set of rules that two or more parties agree to.

    While the words and wording of the license may well be copy right 
protected, the actual rules themselves cannot be copy right protected. 
Thus, if someone wanted to start from scratch and make their own "GPL" 
license, they wouldn't need his blessings, unless they wished to borrow 
exact wording.

    Of course, code itself is written down, just like any license. So, 
if the code itself must be held to that arbitrary standard why should he 
expect, or demand to have his blessing applied if someone were to take 
and extend and then give back a version of his license? (I see little 
difference between written code and a written document.)

    Sure, the person making this new license shouldn't call it the GPL, 
just like nobody can run around calling their new Linux, "The Red Hat 
Linux!" , that's where Trademark protection comes in.

    Rob