Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
> > If you like, I can change the nature of the proprietary function so that
> > it's even more facist.
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:56:43AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> It would not change anything.
> If the result can be distributed with source and under the GPL, then
> it's free. If it cannot, then it's not the GPL that prevents it.
Let's add some patents and maybe some special government legislation
or treaties to the mix, for example -- such that you have a proprietary
function which can be distributed under some license terms which involve
money changing hands, but cannot be distributed under GPL license terms.
How is it not the GPL which is preventing this distribution?
Is it your point that it's really the government which is preventing
distribution? Or, perhaps more specifically copyright law?
If so, how is this different from any other case of "not being able to
distribute under the terms of some license"?