Re: GPL compatibility of DFCL
I thought about this some more while performing various acts of personal
hygiene, and I think I can state my opinion more clearly.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 11:00:46AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:40:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Because the Foo manual still exists as an individually copyrighted work.
> > These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.
> > *** EMPHASIS ADDED ***
> > If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
> > Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and
> > separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms,
> > do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as
> > separate works.
> > **********************
> But look at the _next_ paragraph:
> > But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole
> > which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the
> > whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions
> > for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each
> > and every part regardless of who wrote it.
I think that the GPL uses these paragraphs to distinguish between its
permissions and its restrictions, and that it says that its restrictions
do not apply to incorporated other works, but that its permissions do
always apply. (Of course this is a simplification; refer to the
original text for the non-simplified version :-)
This works fine for the MIT license, which already grants the same
permissions. It does not work fine for the hypothetical clause that
will allow DFCL-through-GPL tunneling, because that clause would
restrict certain things that the GPL grants permission for. If that
permission cannot be granted, then the GPL cannot be applied.
 I bet you wouldn't like to know.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org