-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Then you must not have read carefully enough. http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIfWorkIsShort says: "What if the work is not much longer than the license itself? If a single program is that short, you may as well use a simple all-permissive license for it, rather than the GNU GPL. "all-permissive" is what I don't want to use. Doing an ls -lh on /usr/src/linux-2.4.26/COPYING shows: - -rw-r--r-- 1 573 573 18k Aug 2 2002 COPYING So, my question still stands. Greg On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 02:25:17AM -0500, Luke Davis wrote: > I have had to apply that license a time or two, and therefore read what I > could on those occasions. I read of no such requirement. It is not in > the text of the copyleft, or the other short form documents available. > > The GPL is a pattern. Once you apply it to your document, the version you > applied, including or excluding any terms you saw fit to include or > exclude, is what applies. If the license as you apply it, does not > prohibit the nature of your program, then it is permitted. > > You are free to modify the license in any manner you see fit. I do not > recall if doing so, still confers upon you the right to call it a "GPL", > but the terms are i denticle. > > > - -- Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager at EU.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA0BY17s9z/XlyUyARAimxAJ9j8VHK3IsWedPfLQTpEcU65xuWuACgwu86 2IH02UpCP4m4/gHPGATMScA= =62DT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
