Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Raul Miller wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:18:04AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> >> In exactly the same place(s) that it is in gcc. In the source files,
in the output from --version, etc.
>
> Raul Miller wrote:
>> > Has metafont been put under the GPL? I hadn't realized that. In that
case, I need to find another example.
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 07:14:21AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> No. The GPL requires that the notices be kept intact. Not that they be a
>
> 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.
Please pick one example and stick with it to the logical conclusion. This
is your third (and fourth) hypothetical GCC combination.
Even the "patches only" license does not place restrictions on
non-distributed materials. (Otherwise Debian users could not build QMail)
Since you're not calling GPL+$must_rename "$must_rename", there's no problem
meeting ${must_rename}'s terms.
> 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.
If the combined work can not be distributed under the terms of the GPL (i.e.
providing complete source code and the freedom to create derivative works),
then the combined work can not be distributed at all.
(I'm pretty sure we both agree with that: GPL + GPL-incompatible =>
non-distributable)
>> complete explanation of all copyright holders, nor a complete
>> description of the licensing terms. If it did, the Linux kernel would be
significantly bigger (something like over 10000 (C) notices).
>
> The problem comes when the licensing terms conflict.
That problem only comes if you want to distribute.
> That said, I don't have any reason to believe it's possible to have
licensing terms which aren't explicitly stated in the license on the
software. If I receive software with a license, I have no reason to act as
if there were some other licensing terms which I haven't been told about.
There's a difference between the GPL-required "keep intact all the notices
that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty" (section 1)
and what you're describing.
I think you and I agree that the resulting work (GCC + Metafont, or GCC +
QMail, or GCC + $paladium) can not be distributed under the terms of the
GPL. So, I will refer specifically to the requirements that the GPL places
on other acts restricted by copyright:
1) Creating Derived works: You are given permission to create derived works
by section 2, as long as you do all of the following:
a) post conspicuous and appropriate copyright notices (Section 1) b)
keep intact references to the GPL* and warranty disclaimers (Section 1) c)
clearly mark modified files (section 2a)
d) preserve interactive banner printing (section 2c)
2) Copying the work:
Verbatim copies of the source code are allowed by section 1. Just put a
post-it note on your PC that there's GNU/Inside(TM) if that's appropriate.
Since you are given permission to create derived works, any copies
produced in the normal process of creating derived works are allowed.
(principle of estoppel. What good is the right to create derived works if
it is legally impossible?)
3) What else... Use? No, that's outside the scope of the GPL.
4) ?
--Joe
* References to the GPL apply to the work if the reference is placed there
by the copyright holder (section 0, first sentence). Since you are
(presumably) not the copyright holder of
{$paladium|QMail|MetaFont|$must_rename}, the copyright holder has not placed
the GPL reference there, so the GPL notice does not meet the conditions of
Section 0. (Hence the terms and conditions of the GPL do not apply)
Reply to: