Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.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.]
Brian Sniffen email@example.com