[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 05:05:47PM -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
>> that
>                                                      ^^^
> 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
> license)

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"?


Reply to: