Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
I think I am getting to your point, let me try:
@ 13/05/2004 12:44 : wrote Raul Miller :
For the just read the GPL part, I did (and asked this list for help and
review, but no-one seems to be interested), and I got to the following
(obvious duh) conclusion:
* it does not permit making derived works that combines the source code
of the original work with the source code of a second original work that
is license to the combining person under an incompatible license.
Or just read the GPL and consider what happens in the case where a
DFSG license imposes some restriction not imposed by the GPL, and where
someone wants to combine software under the two licenses.
The duh part is: that is the definition of _incompatible_ to begin with.
The "I think I am understanding" part is: you are arguing that, by
forbidding one of making and distributing those (functional)
modifications, the GPL forbids some derived works, and in this process,
hurts DFSG#3 "Derived Works :: The license must allow modifications and
derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same
terms as the license of the original software." Is that what you are
trying to say?
As I have said before, the problems comes when the licensing terms
conflict /and/ you want to redistribute the combined stuff.
complete explanation of all copyright holders, nor a complete
description of the licensing terms. If it did, the Linux kernel would
be significantly bigger (something like over 10000 (C) notices).
The problem comes when the licensing terms conflict.
That said, I don't have any reason to believe it's possible to have
licensing terms which aren't explicitly stated in the license on the
software. If I receive software with a license, I have no reason to
act as if there were some other licensing terms which I haven't been
[If that doesn't make sense to you, re-read what you wrote.]
This did not make sense to me.