gpl question

Gregory Nowak greg at
Wed Jun 16 05:43:17 EDT 2004

Hash: SHA1

Then you must not have read carefully enough.


"What if the work is not much longer than the license itself?
          If a single program is that short, you may as well use a
          simple all-permissive license for it, rather than the
          GNU GPL.

"all-permissive" is what I don't want to use.

Doing an ls -lh on /usr/src/linux-2.4.26/COPYING shows:

- -rw-r--r--    1 573      573           18k Aug  2  2002 COPYING

So, my question still stands.


On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 02:25:17AM -0500, Luke Davis wrote:
> I have had to apply that license a time or two, and therefore read what I 
> could on those occasions.  I read of no such requirement.  It is not in 
> the text of the copyleft, or the other short form documents available.
> The GPL is a pattern.  Once you apply it to your document, the version you 
> applied, including or excluding any terms you saw fit to include or 
> exclude, is what applies.  If the license as you apply it, does not 
> prohibit the nature of your program, then it is permitted.
> You are free to modify the license in any manner you see fit.  I do not 
> recall if doing so, still confers upon you the right to call it a "GPL", 
> but the terms are i denticle.

- -- 
Free domains: or mail dns-manager at

Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the Speakup mailing list