Re: Including the GPL in GPL code (Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> This is getting off-topic, and seems like typical FAQ material, but I'll
> reply briefly.  I suggest using, e.g., [e-mail] to get
> other people's interpretations.  If you want a more authoritative
> answer, talk to [e-mail].
>   
>
>> 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.
>   
But (and the reason why this is important, and IETF-relevant) how is 
this case different from the case where you introduce pieces of an RFC 
(which also don't need to be considered part of the work) as comments 
into a work?

With the GPL text, you don't have the copyright, and you don't have a 
license that permits modified versions. But you do have the right to 
copy it.

With the excerpt from an RFC, you don't have the copyright, and you 
don't have a license that permits modified versions. But you do have the 
right to copy it - you even have the right to copy pieces of it.

Why are you insisting that the first is perfectly reasonable, and the 
second is a show-stopper?

               Harald