:drgn_think: The GPL is not actually a free license because you’re not allowed to modify it
Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
Erin 💽✨ (erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net)'s status on Wednesday, 24-Jul-2024 04:29:13 JST Erin 💽✨ -
Embed this notice
Erin 💽✨ (erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net)'s status on Wednesday, 24-Jul-2024 04:29:11 JST Erin 💽✨ GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, 29 June 2007
Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. https://fsf.org/
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this. -
Embed this notice
Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Wednesday, 24-Jul-2024 04:30:34 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: @erincandescent Yeah, always found it weird when I think some other licences allow modifications with a "name must be changed" requirement. -
Embed this notice
翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 24-Jul-2024 04:33:43 JST 翠星石 @erincandescent Infidel, if they didn't do that, people would just modify the GPLv3 into a proprietary license and say that such proprietary license is the "GNU General Public License version 3".
Permission to modify the license has been granted, provided you remove the preamble and any reference to GNU and the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
This is quite unique for licenses - as most license authors refuse to allow for any modifications, very much so including pushover licenses (some are so short that they don't qualify for copyright, but there are a few longer ones that are creative enough that copyright applies). -
Embed this notice
翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 24-Jul-2024 04:34:40 JST 翠星石 @lanodan https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
-
Embed this notice