On 2005-11-04 01:08:11 -0500, J.C. Roberts <unknown(NO_SPAM)@abac.com> said:
> If terms need to be clearly defined to prevent
> ambiguity, such definitions and clarifications must be included in the
> license itself
Just to be completely clear it is a violation of LGPL (and the GPL too)
to change the text:
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this
license document, but changing it is not allowed"
This is why the LLGPL must take the form that it does.
> (or be attached to the original license as an addendum)
> in order to be legally valid.
The Preamble is an addendum. The two together (Preamble and LGPL) make
up the LLGPL:
"The popular open source licenses do not take into consideration the
special features of dynamic languages -- especially Lisp. In an effort
to remedy this, we have created a new license called the LLGPL, the
Lisp Lesser GNU Public License. The LLGPL consists of a preamble,
developed specifically for Lisp applications, and the LGPL. Please note
that when these two conflict, the preamble takes precedence."
from <http://opensource.franz.com/>
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> Just to be completely clear it is a violation of LGPL (and the GPL too)
> to change the text:
>
> "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this
> license document, but changing it is not allowed"
>
> This is why the LLGPL must take the form that it does.
I can't cite any case law on this, but lawyers have been cribbing
clauses from each others' contracts for so long that it's now a
recognized exception to copyright law. I'm pretty sure any lawyer trying
to press a copyright claim on contract language would be laughed out of
court -- that's why it's so rare to see copyright notices on contracts.