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

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:

>> > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:18:04AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> >> In exactly the same place(s) that it is in gcc.  In the source files,
>> >> in the output from --version, etc.
> Raul Miller wrote:
>> > Has metafont been put under the GPL?  I hadn't realized that.  In that
>> > case, I need to find another example.
> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 07:14:21AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> No.  The GPL requires that the notices be kept intact.  Not that they be a
> I was looking for a "patches only" license, and my memory wasn't up to
> the job.  Replace "metafont" with some software under a "patches only"
> license (or, any license with some restriction not imposed by the GPL
> -- a "must rename" license is probably enough), to see the point I was
> trying to get across.

Such licenses typically allow *distribution* only as unmodified
source, but allow local application of those patches and derivation of
new works (e.g., compilation).  Free patches-only licenses allow
distribution of binaries with the patches in; djb's, for example, do
not allow this last.

> 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.

They do so.

They probably can't distribute the result, but this is fine and
happens all the time.

>> 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
> told about.
> [If that doesn't make sense to you, re-read what you wrote.]
> -- 
> Raul

Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: