[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

Scripsit Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>

> > > Because it incorporates functionality implemented in proprietary
> > > code.

> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:41:32PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > It cannot do that if it is distributed with source and under the terms
> > of the GPL.

> That's what I've been saying.

You seem to have been saying so by asserting the opposite.

> > I still don't know what you are getting at.

> That there are [hypothetical] cases where you can't distribute with the
> all the sources, let alone sources licensed under the terms of the GPL.

Of course, if I make a derivation that includes code for which I do
not have copyright, I will need the copyright holder's permission to
distribut the result under the GPL.

However, that is completely different from the GPL not allowing me to
make the modifications in the first place.

> This can happen when there is proprietary functionality which you cannot
> legally reverse engineer.

If I have enough source to fulfill the requirement to distrubite with
source, then I do not see how reverse engineering can be relevant to
the discussion.

Henning Makholm         "Nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit."

Reply to: