Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

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

 



inode0 wrote:

Please explain how a work containing any GPL'd material can contain any that
is not covered by the GPL, given the 'work as a whole' provision in the
license.   While there are indeed licenses that permit their own terms to be
replaced by the GPL when used in this way, that means the terms _become_ the
GPL, not that different terms are or can be, by design, compatible.

By definition a license is compatible with the GPL if it allows the
work to be combined with GPL code and redistributed as a combined work
under the GPL. There is no reason to redefine or explain this in any
other way.

The only reason not to explain that terms become the GPL in this context is to keep up the pretense that the terms of the original license are compatible.

Lots of licenses are compatible with the GPL.

Only the ones that permit effectively becoming the GPL.

Some
people value freedom for developers more than freedom for users.
Restrictions have nothing to do with freedom no matter how you spin it.

Restrictions have nothing to do with anarchy, but they are the normal
way people organize themselves to preserve freedom.

The GPL is a reasonable anti-competitive tool for someone who offers a program under a commercial license as well and wants to ensure that the open source version can never be improved more than his own. But it has nothing to do with freedom, which would permit it to be improved in any way possible.

So drop the misrepresentation and make the license enumerate all of the
things it prohibits instead of hand-waving about freedom while in fact
preventing most of the possible ways of re-using the code.

It is impossible to enumerate things like this just as it is
impossible to enumerate all the ways people can harm each other.

Many licenses list things that are prohibited. And it would be less deceptive if the GPL stated plainly that the covered code may not be improved and redistributed with anyone who wants to make their own choice about the license covering their own code that they add. And it may not be improved by combining with existing code with existing and different terms.

The
intent of the GPL is to preserve the essential freedoms enumerated by
the FSF. That is the clear intent, revisions are necessary as people
invent new ways to circumvent the desired wishes of the copyright
holders.

A license that was really about freedom would have no reason for anyone to need to circumvent it.

--
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux