Re: Releasing an Oracle PL/SQL Web Toolkit application under the GPL

In article <nm9ofonoybz.fsf_at_kindness.mit.edu>, <brlewis_at_my-deja.com> wrote:
>seebs_at_plethora.net (Peter Seebach) writes:
>> For instance, imagine a license similar to the GPL, but in which the
>> Preamble to the GPL has been replaced with something else; let's call
>> it the HPL. The HPL requires, just as the GPL does, that code
>> licensed under it be distributed with it. Since the HPL is requiring
>> you to distribute code with a thing which is not required when you
>> distribute GPL'd code, it is "more restrictive", so you may not
>> distribute GPL'd and HPL'd code together without some kind of
>> relicensing.

>Not true. In this case, the HPL is part of an "appropriate copyright
>notice" for the derived work. Section 1 of the GPL requires that you
>include it. If none of the terms of the HPL are "further restrictions"
>(Section 6) beyond those imposed by the GPL, there is no conflict.

[Quoted] It's not a copyright notice, it's a screed attached to a license. Imagine that the HPL's Preamble consists of a series of death threats and swear words. The requirement that you include these *in addition to the copyright notice* is a requirement above and beyond the requirements of the GPL, even though it's precisely the same sort of requirement as the GPL imposes.

I don't think it's fair to say that the preamble is part of "an appropriate copyright notice". It's a piece of political baggage tied to a license.

-s

-- 
   Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / seebs_at_plethora.net
 +--- Need quality network services, server-grade computers, or a shell? ---+
 v   C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter.  Boycott Spamazon!  v
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/