Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Scripsit Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>
> > I do not see any connection at all between that and "restrictions on
> > the rights of other users of derivates".
> People without proper palladium licenses would not have the rights
> required by the gpl.
Why not?
> > > We do not promise this.
> > Yes, we do. That's the fundamental role of the Debian Free Software
> > Guidelines. If you do not understand this, we have no common basis for
> > communicating.
> Quote the relevant text, please.
I did. Here you quote my quote:
> > Read the Social Contract: "Debian will remain 100% free". That is a
> > promise, and the contents of that promise includes what I wrote.
> I disagree. 100% free means that we aren't going to be distributing
> free software which depends on non-free software.
100% free first and foremost means that the software we distribute
will itself be free.
> 100% free does not mean that we will require that all of our free
> software be convertable into non-free software.
No, and I have not said or implied so.
> > Aha. However, if somebody manages to modify gcc such that it can
> > nevertheless be used in that environment, then it is perfectly legal
> > to distribute the modified gcc under the same terms as gcc itself.
> Not if this means that making copies of the derived work is forbidden
> by the gpl.
Making copies of the derived work is *not* forbidden by the GPL.
--
Henning Makholm "Den nyttige hjemmedatamat er og forbliver en myte.
Generelt kan der ikke peges på databehandlingsopgaver af
en sådan størrelsesorden og af en karaktér, som berettiger
forestillingerne om den nye hjemme- og husholdningsteknologi."
Reply to: