[uk.comp.os.linux] Re: Smoothwall GPL - not quite licensed under GPL

[MJ Ray]

Interesting.  Is there any restriction on people calling non-GPL
software "GPL"?  I mean, is GPL a trademark?  Should it be?

From: Jason Clifford <jason at uklinux.net>
Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Smoothwall GPL - not quite licensed under GPL
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 13:21:21 +0100

[...]

I am aware of this. 0.9.8 installer was released under GPL. The COPYING
file for 0.9.9 beta prefixes the standard v.2 GPL with:

===================== excerpt starts===========================
SmoothWall GPL is licenced under the GNU GPL.

Portions of SmoothWall, including the installer and the ADSL management
utilities, are licenced under modified licences which are available on
application. No modifications to either the installation libraries or
binaries and re-distribution of modified binaries based on the installer
is permitted without the owners permission.  The owners of this code are
Lawrence Manning (lawrence at smoothwall.org) and Daniel Goscomb
(dang at smoothwall.org).

The rest of SmoothWall GPL are licensed under the GPL, which follows:
===================== excerpt ends===========================

This is a departure from previous licensing policy on the face of it.

I find the fact that they chose to include it in the GPL terms file a bit
trite as well but that's personal opinion.

In legal terms amending the document is a breach of copyright as:

 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

is the first sentence of the GPL v.2 document!

Jason

-- 
MJR
Member of the Anglian Linux User Group, UK
Meets every month or so and OPN #alug on Mondays at 2000 UK
http://www.anglian.lug.org.uk/