|
From: | David Grundberg |
Subject: | Re: Licensing of Octave Scripts |
Date: | Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:30:00 +0100 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090812) |
Judd Storrs wrote:
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 6:47 AM, David Grundberg <address@hidden> wrote:The FSF FAQ is confusing on scripting issues because it is very brief and uses a distinct language.The FSF FAQ is the FSF's interpretation of what the license means. Personally, I think the FSF's is back-pedalling the scope of the license in the FAQ in a way that the license does not support. The distinction between builtin and extension is pretty artificial when you consider that the GPL permits forking and creation of new derived software. What was an extension can easily become a builtin in a fork. --judd
Like any legal document, the license is open to interpretation. But I don't think the problem lies with the license, the license does what it can under the scope of copyright licenses. I think the problem is that circumstances regarding derivate works of software are not clear enough. Is the FSF doing wrong in taking the side of GPL protection, in cases where the law says neither one or the other? It is possible that courts judges to the benefit of free software.
David
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |