Re: Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> I've seen the question about separating out the non-license commentary
> posed (on the FSB mailing list IIRC) and answered by Richard Stallman.
> Richard considers the preamble and other commentary about the
> philosophy of the GPL to be an essential part of the license.  I don't
> think he would accept a GPL stripped of its advocacy role, even if
> aggregated into a COPYING file that also contained an appropriate
> polemic.
>   


I think that's a misreading.

I think there's actually a theory of jurisprudence behind the inclusion of
the preamble (and a good theory, at that).

Basically, a clear *intent* is essential to judging a contract in all but
the very least ambiguous aspects.  This contract has to be interpreted
across a lot of jurisdictions.  What you call the "polemic" is pretty vital.


-t



> I mean, really, can you see Richard adopting language like that in
> Larry Rosen's Open Software License or a Creative Commons ShareAlike
> License for the GPLv4? :-)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-arch-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
>
> GNU arch home page:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
>
>