From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932520AbWBCD4S (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 22:56:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932521AbWBCD4S (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 22:56:18 -0500 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.202]:6560 "EHLO wproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932520AbWBCD4R (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 22:56:17 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:from; b=odgFmUuQTRkBLlaB9yJCnBNHtY58oky2QpnYltpS4O8sh8sub1G70+Dl6+JvTeXHBheNkWRaBFCF5DWkEHhEIsG7rroyzbKDHjbZdXKRbLvXvaUjKSfNOj1dfoC7ZxDz+4COV/7soR6hUULwlCw+7vH6qpoTHsyCLWXZuO81gaE= Reply-To: ajwade@cpe001346162bf9-cm0011ae8cd564.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com To: davids@webmaster.com Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 22:56:11 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.3 Cc: mrmacman_g4@mac.com, andrew.j.wade@gmail.com, "Linux Kernel Mailing List" References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200602022256.12213.ajwade@cpe001346162bf9-cm0011ae8cd564.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com> From: Andrew James Wade Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 02 February 2006 02:11, David Schwartz wrote: > The reason you can't modify the GPL, even we assume the GPL is licensed > under the GPL, is because the GPL says you can't modify the GPL. So you're saying that the two lines that are the GPL's copyright license, are also part of the terms and conditions of the GPL, and act in that capacity as a restriction of what you can do under Section 2? That's an interesting argument, I might agree. > It is logically impossible for the GPL to be GPL-incompatible. To be > GPL-incomptabile, a license would have to contain requirements or > restrictions not found in the GPL. How could the GPL possibly do that? It's not the GPL doing that, it's the GPL's license. But perhaps the restrictions of the license are also restrictions of the GPL, they are part of the text of that document after all. Well enough pedantism for me. Andrew Wade