[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
I'm not sure what you're getting at? Google didn't modify the GPL, they release Chrome under the GPL and had a EULA that you had to agree to when installing; they're completely separate licenses. Regards, Ross Bearman On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Simon Waters <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ross Bearman wrote: > > >> Yes, but there has to be a clause in the GPL to cover it. > > Sentence 1 > > "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this > license document, but changing it is not allowed." > > The license itself forbids additional restrictions. > > Seems pretty well covered. It isn't a clause in the license, this > sentence gives you the permission you need to distribute unmodified > copies of the GNU GPL v3 license (with your software). > > If you distribute a modified version using the name GNU or the GNU > preamble you are in breach on the FSF copyright on the licence. This is > done to avoid ambiguity, when software says it is covered by GNU GPL v3 > you have exactly the same rights as with any other GNU GPL v3 piece of > code, their can't be any extra restrictions placed on you, or what the > program does, or who can use it, or to whom it can be distributed, or > what happens to the data or anything else. > > I believe the FSF allow exceptions which are less restrictive, but it is > on a case by case basis, and you have to ask them for permission to vary > the text (because the licence text is covered by their copyright). > > -- > The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG > http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list > FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html > -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html