Making the GPL more scary [LWN.net]

Making the GPL more scary

Posted Oct 18, 2018 16:55 UTC (Thu) by karkhaz (subscriber, #99844)
In reply to: Making the GPL more scary by josh
Parent article: Making the GPL more scary

Thank you, I hadn't seen that. (I don't really understand how this FAQ entry doesn't conflict with the assertion that changing the text is not allowed, but if they say that they're not going to take legal action, then I suppose it's fine)

to post comments

Making the GPL more scary

Posted Oct 18, 2018 16:57 UTC (Thu) by karkhaz (subscriber, #99844) [Link] (2 responses)

Oh, actually, I do get it. Changing the wording but continuing to refer to the license as the GPL is what is prohibited, but copying and modifying some of the terms for your own differently-named license is fine.

Making the GPL more scary

Posted Oct 18, 2018 17:22 UTC (Thu) by juliank (guest, #45896) [Link] (1 responses)

The FSF should really just license the GPL under the GPL. A recursive license would be neat.

Making the GPL more scary

Posted Jan 28, 2021 11:34 UTC (Thu) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]

The GPL is not source code but prose; for one, there is no notion of "object code" or "machine-readable". This consideration would warrant that a more appropriate license be chosen for prose, such as Creative Commons.