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.
Would you like to cite where in the GPL it says that you must maintain a
particular notice or phrasing?
"keep intact" does not mean the same as "unmodified".
>> > 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
> the part that you omitted ends "under the terms of Section 1 above".
And the terms of Section 1 are that you must "conspicuously and
appropriately publish" notices of the copyright and license, and "keep
intact" the license references and warranty disclaimer. No other
> 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
Wrong. It's "copy and distribute". You can distribute without making
copies, and you can copy without distributing.
"copy" is granted if you meet the terms of section 1.
> Interestingly enough, creation of a derived work typically also
> involves making of copies.
Which, if not appropriately licensed, (or subject to local limitations on
copyright, such as fair use in the US) would constitute a copyright
The GPL grants that license. You may make an unlimited number of copies of
the source code (verbatim: "as you receive it") under the terms of section
1. That license grant is unconditional.
Once you modify the source, you're dealing with Section 2.
>> There is no problem with your hypothetical "Paladium GCC" here.
> Maybe you think the terms of Section 1 don't apply?
What term of Section 1 do you think^Wpostulate is being violated by your
hypothetical "Paladium GCC"?