> In message <20011129093210.A19619@pauillac.inria.fr>,
>     Xavier Leroy writes:
> 
> : > The {L,}GPL is itself copyright, and not under the {L,GPL}, so you can't do
> : > this.
> : 
> : Don't pull my leg.  Of course, the copyright owner can say "this code
> : is distributed under the conditions of the LGPL (quoted below in extenso),
> : with the special exception that ...".
> : 
> : Sheesh.  What next?  I can't shave because the FSF advocates beards?
> 
> For a well-known counterexample, the Perl Kit is distributed either
> under the terms of the Artistic License or the GPL.

This is not a counter example. "all of the work, or none of the work".


               Code
              /    \
            /        \
       GPLisation   Artification

At no stage does the Artistic License modify the GPL.

--
 Julian Assange        |If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people
                       |together to collect wood or assign them tasks and
 proff@iq.org          |work, but rather teach them to long for the endless
 proff@gnu.ai.mit.edu  |immensity of the sea. -- Antoine de Saint Exupery
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr