[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:23:48PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > As a rough idea, imagine if gcc were made to support special keywords or
> > control files to make it easier to build programs which use palladium's
> > proprietary encryption and digital rights management facilities object
> > model.  Or, more generally, imagine any change which makes gcc into
> > something that works in a proprietary fashion.

On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:37:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> This is allowed by the GPL and required to be allowed by the DFSG, of course,
> as long as the resulting gcc binary can be distributed under the terms of the
> GPL.  The GPL doesn't care what kinds of changes you make (with very limited
> exceptions, such as the license blurb).

Only if the resulting work (including the implementation of the support
for those keywords) is distributable under the terms of the GPL.

Or, if you're going for the OS exception, replace "integration with
palladium" with "integration with foo" where there's no possibility that
foo is an OS.

Or, maybe you're saying that when integrating with foo it's reasonable
to ask the programmer doing the integration to reimplement foo under the
terms of the GPL?  [Let's say that the programmer in question isn't the
author of foo.]

If asking for extra content is an ok resolution to the problem, then
what's the problem with the GFDL restriction where derived works which
don't have enough content might have to use the same covers?  Just add
more content and the problem is solved...


Reply to: