This is getting off-topic, and seems like typical FAQ material, but I'll reply briefly. I suggest using, e.g., discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx to get other people's interpretations. If you want a more authoritative answer, talk to licensing@xxxxxxxx Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> BTW, this means that at least one program I have released under the >>> GPL is illegal; it includes the GPL as a part of the source code, and >>> since the GPL text is immutable according to the GPL, it is illegal >>> (by this logic) to include it in source code, since the source has to >>> be free of restrictions upon its modification. >>> >> >> I don't see how that makes the program illegal. It just makes it harder >> for others to redistribute it safely because the licensing information >> is unclear. > Simon, > > the example is at http://counter.li.org/scripts/machine-update. Take a look. > > There is a single file that contains both the program source and the GPL. > I want to release this under the GPL. You can't release the text of the GPL under the GPL license, since you are not the copyright holder of the text in the GPL license. Further, the license of the GPL text does not permit re-licensing, or even modifications. > Now, I have three possible interpretations: > > 1 - The words of the GPL that say "Everyone is permitted to copy and > distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it > is not allowed." don't really apply in this case. That interpretation seems clearly bogus to me. > 2 - The words of the GPL that say "You may modify your copy or copies > of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the > Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the > terms of Section 1 above" don't apply to modifications of the portion > of the Program that is the GPL This seems more or less correct, even though it may sound surprising at first. More generally, and more clearly expressed, it can be stated as this: The license for a piece of work applies to the piece of work, it does not apply to the license itself. The license of a work is not normally not considered part of the work; it is metadata about the work. > 3 - I'm breaking the GPL That may hold as well, but without further elaboration I can't tell for sure. I compared the part of your work that consists of the GPL text with the canonical version [1]. It seems that someone has modified the license text: the section 'How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs' is missing. If you had read that section, you would know of a better way to explain the licensing conditions to users that would have avoided the problem. I believe this violate the license on the GPL itself, so you may want to fix it. However, I don't think the FSF will care significantly about that problem. For more information, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html > Now, with your extensive knowledge of what the GPL means for included > text .... which is it? Your question comes up and is answered in Debian mailing lists from time to time: some people claim that Debian cannot distribute the GPL license text because it is not licensed under a free software license. /Simon [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf