Simon Josefsson wrote:
This is getting off-topic, and seems like typical FAQ material, but I'll
reply briefly. I suggest using, e.g., discussion(_at_)fsfeurope(_dot_)org to
get
other people's interpretations. If you want a more authoritative
answer, talk to licensing(_at_)gnu(_dot_)org(_dot_)
2 - The words of the GPL that say "You may modify your copy or copies
of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the
Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the
terms of Section 1 above" don't apply to modifications of the portion
of the Program that is the GPL
This seems more or less correct, even though it may sound surprising at
first. More generally, and more clearly expressed, it can be stated as
this: The license for a piece of work applies to the piece of work, it
does not apply to the license itself. The license of a work is not
normally not considered part of the work; it is metadata about the work.
But (and the reason why this is important, and IETF-relevant) how is
this case different from the case where you introduce pieces of an RFC
(which also don't need to be considered part of the work) as comments
into a work?
With the GPL text, you don't have the copyright, and you don't have a
license that permits modified versions. But you do have the right to
copy it.
With the excerpt from an RFC, you don't have the copyright, and you
don't have a license that permits modified versions. But you do have the
right to copy it - you even have the right to copy pieces of it.
Why are you insisting that the first is perfectly reasonable, and the
second is a show-stopper?
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf