Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
> > 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.
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 06:19:42PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Such licenses typically allow *distribution* only as unmodified
> source, but allow local application of those patches and derivation of
> new works (e.g., compilation).
But the point is they involve a restriction which is not compatible with
> > 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.
The point is that they're not able to make the copies necessary for this
because of the GPL. If it's legal to make these copies, that is because
the law says that copyright can't restrict that case.
This is significant if we don't allow consideration of the freedoms
provided by law when discussing whether a license is DFSG free.