Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > mmix-src part GPL. part Donald Knuth license - modified files must be
> > > renamed and clearly identified. why is this in non-free?
> On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 13:38, Raul Miller wrote:
> > We probably don't have the legal right to distribute that one. The Knuth
> > license imposes an additional restriction beyond the GPL, and the GPL
> > itself says that that means you're not allowed to distribute it.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:54:30PM +0000, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Only true if it incorporates someone else's GPL source. If it is all
> the author's own work, he can do whatever he likes and the licence
> becomes a composite of the GPL and his additional restrictions.
But we're not the author.
Yeah, the author always has the right to copy and distribute the files,
but I don't see how that applies here.
Also, at leat in the U.S., distributing source and distributing binaries
are legally the same thing. Otherwise, distributing binaries wouldn't
be restricted by a copyright on the source. If the grant of copyright
grants some exception to this rule, that's a different issue. The bits
on the wire aren't the issue.