Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 07:32:23PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 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.
"The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
original software."
DFSG#3 requires that derived works be distributable under the terms of
the original software.
The GPL requires that derived works *only* be distributed under its terms
(with no further restrictions, hence its notorious virality).
If the proprietary code is not under the terms of the GPL, then the GPL
prohibits distribution, because it is *not* under the same terms as the
license of the original software. This is a case in which DFSG#3 very
explicitly does not require derived works to be distributable.
It only requires that derived works be distributable under the terms of
the original software.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: