Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
> Raul Miller wrote:
> (Deep attributions snipped in previous messages)
> >> >>You can combine gcc and metafont and make a new compiler; you can
> >> >>even make a script that combines them, apply some patch to the
> >> >>combination, and compiles the result to get to your invention; what
> >> >>you can't do is to redistribute the resulting binary nor the
> >> >>resulting source.
> >> >Perhaps there's some part of the GPL that gives this permission which
> >> >I've overlooked? If so, please quote this.
> >> section 2:
> >> 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
> >> of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
> >> distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
> >> above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
> > And how would this part of the terms of Section 1 be satisfied in
> > this case:
> > "...provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each
> > copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty;
> > keep intact all the notices that refer to this License.."
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:42:42AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> By your words "this case" above, are you referring to the above-quoted
> discussion of combining gcc and metafont?
> Based on your next (quoted below) paragraph, I must assume you are.
> What does keeping copyright notices, warranty disclaimers and references to
> this license have to do with combining GCC and metafont?
The license on GCC specifically disallows copy rights when the work as
a whole includes portions licensed under the metafont license.
> Are you suggesting that no possible combination of GCC and metafont can be
> labeled with conspicuous and appropriate notices?
Yes -- well... not without some exceptional effort (for example: changing
the license on metafont might make an appropriate notice possible).
> > Alternatively, how are you combining gcc and metafont without making a
> > copy of the software which combines gcc and metafont?
> Section 2 grants you a license to create derivative works. While not
> explicitly granting permission to copy (just copy, not "copy and
> distribute"), without that permission, there can be no derivative works.
> Since the entire point of the GPL is to encourage derivative works, any
> reading of the GPL which does not allow derivative works is clearly
This looks like a quantifier issue.
The GPL is designed to encourage the creation of derivative works,
but that does not include derivative works where GPL copyright is not
granted to everyone.
> >> Let's see, eliminating the irrelevant (to our discussion) parts: [[
> >> 2,/caput/ ]] You may modify; you may copy such modifications with all
> >> rights we waived in section 1; provided [[ 2, a ]] you mark the files
> >> as
> > Slow down, are you saying section 1 is irrelevant, or that you've
> > satisfied its terms?
> The terms of section 1 are satisfied by "conspicuously and appropriately"
> keeping certain notices intact.
This doesn't answer the question.
> >> I said: You can modify gcc, combining it with metafont (as long as you
> >> don't eliminate 2,c announcements -- which AFAIR gcc does not have);
> > If you can put appropriate copyright notices on it, sure. I'm not sure
> > how you're going to so this, but I'm sure you'll clear that up for me.
> Change line 1 of gcc/src/main.c to #include "metafont/includes/includeme.h".
> That's a (rather trivial) combination of the two programs. All of the
> requirements for section 2 are met (as long as you don't distribute the
> resulting combined work).
Where's the appropriate copyright notice which you are supposed to
[Aside: I will agree that some copyright law allows this sort of thing
-- basically making it not a copyright issue. But that's not a part of