undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdahart2y ago0 comments

You’re referring to a different kind of dispute than I (and parent) was talking about. In this case, Stallman did handle the dispute about whether GNU Parallel’s citation notice conflicted with the terms of the GPL.

0 comments

dec0dedab0de2y ago

Okay that makes sense. You're saying that since the GPL itself is not open, that it needs Stallman's approval for modifications that are not explicitly allowed. And I was saying that it does not necessarily mean those modifications are enforceable between two parties in a random jurisdiction, which comes down to courts and whatnot.

dahartOP2y ago

Yes kind-of… in this case Parallel’s notice is not a modification of the license at all, and Stallman is the person who ruled on this question and confirmed this to be true. The GPL doesn’t prevent authors from including a notice, and having a notice doesn’t conflict with the terms of the GPL.

I feel like the whole problem here is that the legality of Parallel’s notice, and the separation of the notice from the GPL, is not at all clear. The language is confusing to users. People who take the license seriously are staying away from Parallel because of the fear of accidentally breaking the license terms.

memefrog2y ago

>in this case Parallel’s notice is not a modification of the license at all

This is a question of law that only a court can answer.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse