• To: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Subject: Re: General Public License for DTD and Schema
• From: <martin@h...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 01:19:05 +0000 (GMT)
• Cc: "Winchel 'Todd' Vincent III" <winchel@m...>, "K. Ari Krupnikov" <ari@c...>, "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0211211931440.10307-100000@s...>

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Rich Salz wrote:
> sure, you can call it whatever you want, but GPL really means the Gnu
> Public Licnese to "everyone."

yeah?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL

still, apart from being wrong i think that you're right, using the term
GPL to refer to something that is not the GNU GPL can't be right,
especially if the licence in question is different in aim and purpose.
or is the intention to enforce that derived work be GPL'd as well? in that
case maybe it does make some sense, confusing as it is.

i didn't have a good look at the licence though, not being a lawyer i'm
happy with any old BSD.. but i like the idea.


/m

Martin Klang
http://www.o-xml.org - the object-oriented XML programming language

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: General Public License for DTD and Schema
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• References:
  • Re: General Public License for DTD and Schema
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: General Public License for DTD and Schema
• Next by Date: [ANN] RELAX NG Compact Syntax Utilities
• Previous by thread: Re: General Public License for DTD and Schema
• Next by thread: Re: General Public License for DTD and Schema
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread