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).
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 07:32:23PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Only if the resulting work (including the implementation of the
> > support for those keywords) is distributable under the terms
> > of the GPL.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 08:42:08PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> "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."
Yes.
> DFSG#3 requires that derived works be distributable under the terms of
> the original software.
Yes.
> The GPL requires that derived works *only* be distributed under its terms
> (with no further restrictions, hence its notorious virality).
Yes.
> 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.
The part it prohibits distribution of is the part that is under the
original terms -- the GPL has no say over the parts under licensed under
other terms.
This includes the work as a whole, however, since the work as a whole
must satisfy all licenses.
> This is a case in which DFSG#3 very explicitly does not require derived
> works to be distributable.
Agreed, though the convolutions you went through don't really have any
bearing on this point.
> It only requires that derived works be distributable under the terms
> of the original software.
Yes.
--
Raul
Reply to: