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

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

Scripsit Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>
> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:25:50AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:

> > I don't know. However, if you somehow manage to make a functional
> > modification of gcc such that it runs on the system *and* you
> > distribute your modified gcc with full source and under the terms of
> > the GPL, then you will have no legal trouble with the FSF.

> You'd probably run into dmca problems

I wouldn't; I'm not in a jurisdiction where that works.

However, even if people do get into legal problems, it will not be
problems with the FSF, and the GPL-ness of the original GCC will be
completely irrelevant to the problems.

> > If somebody *else* (or your lack of access to applicable hardware, or
> > plain old lack of time, skill, and interest) prevents you from making
> > a functional modification and distributing the modified GCC with full
> > source under the terms of the GPL ... well, then that is not really
> > the fault of the GPL itself, and it makes no sense to claim that such
> > a scenario describes a functional modification that the GPL disallows.
> I wasn't talking about "fault".

What on earth are you talking about then?

Your agenda seems to be trying to demonstrate that the GPL is "not
free enough" because it prevents certain kinds of functional
modifications. I am retorting that it is not the GPL that prevents
things in the scenarios you are sketching.

> But, I don't agree that the GPL allows all functional modifications.

The GPL has nothing at all against the functional modification you

The various problems you are posing are completely detached from
whether or not the original software is under the GPL or some other
license. It is not the GPL that "does not allow" the modifications;
ergo, it is not the GPL's fault.

Henning Makholm                   "We will discuss your youth another time."

Reply to: