Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:05:47PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> (Note: The license blurb is actually required to be maintained by copyright
> law, not by the license itself.)
The license itself also explicitly states this as a requirement.
> > Only if the resulting work (including the implementation of the support
> > for those keywords) is distributable under the terms of the GPL.
> No. The derived work is allowed no matter what:
> GPL section 2:
> GPL> You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of
> GPL> it, thus forming a work based on the Program, [...], provided that
the part that you omitted ends "under the terms of Section 1 above".
It also explicitly grants the right to copy in the text you omitted (which
might have something to do with why it's called a copyright license)
Interestingly enough, creation of a derived work typically also involves
making of copies.
> There is no problem with your hypothetical "Paladium GCC" here.
Maybe you think the terms of Section 1 don't apply?