GPL compliance

[Daniel Carrera]

On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 20:59 +0200, Mario Vukelic wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 19:42 +0100, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > The GPL *is* permission to redistribute and re-license 
> 
> Actually it is permission to redistribute. The term "re-license" in this
> context is kinda ambiguous - it could being allowed to rerelease the
> GPL'ed code under another license (which only the actual copyright
> holder(s) can do).  
> I know that you mean the correct thing and it's only an accident, but I
> have to remark on it, otherwise Gary might get even more confused.

Like you said, you know what I mean. I didn't feel I needed to say that
the right to re-license specifies that it must be under the GPL, because
we all know that. Most of the time that you get a license that allows
re-licensing, you will have conditions on what your license can be (in
the GPL's case, the condition is that the new license must be the GPL).

I do feel that it's important to say that the GPL allows re-licensing
because it means that A can give a product to B, and B to C and C to D.
A mere right to re-distribution wouldn't do this (the chain would stop
at C). So the right to re-license is important.

Cheers,
Daniel.
-- 
http://opendocumentfellowship.org
  "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
  unreasonable man tries to adapt the world to himself.
  Therefore all progress depends on unreasonable men."
        -- George Bernard Shaw