[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>

> 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?

It is the patents, the government legislation, et cetera, that
prevents the distribution.

I really don't see how you can claim that it is the GPL that leads to
non-distributability . Could you try to describe the reasoning that
leads you to that conclusion (rather than just asserting that is is)?

> If so, how is this different from any other case of "not being able to
> distribute under the terms of some license"?

It is different from, for example, a license that explicitly says:

   Modified versions that run under X11 are not allowed and may not be

(By the way, this example is not hypothetical - as far as I remember,
we once saw such a license on d-l. I don't remember when or for which
software, though).

Henning Makholm                            "What a hideous colour khaki is."

Reply to: