Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
> > The GPL specifically disallows creation of copies with changes -- no
> > matter how functional -- which include restrictions on the rights of
> > other users of derivatives.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 07:53:06PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> And that specifically was not what you were describing.
> Your literal words were:
> > > > So, in essence, you think that the DFSG says we must disallow the
> > > > distribution of gcc if its license prevents you distributing copies which
> > > > have been functionally modified to better integrate with microsoft's
> > > > palladium?
> I do not see any connection at all between that and "restrictions on
> the rights of other users of derivates".
People without proper palladium licenses would not have the rights
required by the gpl.
> > > With the DFSG we promise to our users that they can take any software
> > > in main and modify it for any purpose - and distribute such modified
> > > version under the same license as the software they started out
> > > with. "Any purpose" here includes modifications that lets it work with
> > > "microsoft's palladium", whatever this is.
> > We do not promise this.
> Yes, we do. That's the fundamental role of the Debian Free Software
> Guidelines. If you do not understand this, we have no common basis for
Quote the relevant text, please.
> > Feel free to quote the promise to me if you disagree.
> Read the Social Contract: "Debian will remain 100% free". That is a
> promise, and the contents of that promise includes what I wrote.
I disagree. 100% free means that we aren't going to be distributing
free software which depends on non-free software. 100% free does not
mean that we will require that all of our free software be convertable
into non-free software.
> > As an aside, Microsoft's Palladium is currently a mix of software and
> > hardware vaporware, where some claims about its feature set appear to
> > mean that free software would be impossible to use in that environment.
> Aha. However, if somebody manages to modify gcc such that it can
> nevertheless be used in that environment, then it is perfectly legal
> to distribute the modified gcc under the same terms as gcc itself.
Not if this means that making copies of the derived work is forbidden
by the gpl.