[MPlayer-dev-eng] [RFC] pre8: regressions, critical bugs and activities

[Diego Biurrun]

On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 04:41:44AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 10:26:33PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 01:59:21AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 08:09:51AM -0500, Robert Edele wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Doesn't the GPL state that the license itself cannot be modified and
> > > > that no additional restrictions can be imposed (though additional rights
> > > > can).
> > > 
> > > The license itself is not modified.  There is no way to prevent this,
> > > it's just that it's not compatible with standard GPL any longer.
> > 
> > IMO it's murky waters, but its possible that using the text of the GPL
> > as part of non-GPL, GPL-incompatible licensing terms is infringing on
> > the GPL's copyright itself, since it says you cannot modify it. It
> > depends on the interpretation of the term modify.. and of couse IANAL.
> > :)
> 
> IMHO/IANAL, license and contract texts cannot be copyrighted, at least they
> should not be copyrightable, it would be completely idiotic but then
> common sense and logic arent the law so maybe they can ...

Of course license texts are copyrightable and copyrighted, as is the
GPL.  Just look at the top of it:

                    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                       Version 2, June 1991

  Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
        51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301  USA
  Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
  of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

And of course it makes sense to protect it, if anybody can modify the
license as they see fit and continue calling it GPL, what sense does it
make to call a program GPLed?  Your GPL, my GPL or one of the 5432
incompatible versions?

Diego