Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 01:01:55PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> 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.
> 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?
That sounds right.
> >>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.
> As I have said before, the problems comes when the licensing terms
> conflict /and/ you want to redistribute the combined stuff.
More properly, the problem comes when the licensing terms conflict and
you and you want to do anything controlled by copyright.
> >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
> >told about.
> >[If that doesn't make sense to you, re-read what you wrote.]
> This did not make sense to me.
I was referring to this statement by Joe Moore:
The GPL requires that the notices be kept intact. Not that they
be a complete explanation of all copyright holders, nor a complete
description of the licensing terms.
I suppose there's some question here -- what does "a complete description"
mean? My point was that all license terms must be stated explicitly.
However, if "a complete description of the licensing terms" means
something other than "all license terms must be stated explicitly"
then I don't see what contrast he is trying to draw.