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

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

 



Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Alexandre Oliva wrote:

but it's a one way trip and that copy of such code no longer has its
original license terms.

Can you back this up?  All the evidence I've got suggests the exact
opposite.

I thought you had just agreed with this in another posting.

No, I first said it wouldn't make sense for an author to try to
enforce something that is permitted by the license s/he granted.
Then, in another posting, you proposed the idea above and asked for
confirmation, and then I responded explaining why I believe the exact
opposite holds, and that you probably thought what you did because of
your mistaken understanding as to how the GPL works.

Practically speaking I follow your argument that the covered work could be treated as though explicitly dual-licensed - and kept separate. However, I still don't see how the GPL requirements are technically removed once you've accepted the license that applies them to any covered component of a work. Aren't you obligated by accepting this license to observe its terms which explicitly extend to the work-as-a-whole?

Of course the original copies of works covered by less restrictive
licenses would remain available

That's not what I'm talking about.  Please re-read the message in
which you thought I agreed with the above, and follow up if you need
clarification on my position.

Please do explain how you can accept a license, then subsequently ignore the terms. If you aren't redistributing any part under the GPL, you might ignore the license since you don't have to accept it in that case.

Some people seem to think the story has changed recently,

On both sides :-)  (for such large values of recently as 1995+ :-)

I generally don't expect the truth to vary from day to day on this
sort of issue, even for some moderately large number of days.

And yet you get the impression that Linus' statement you cited, from
back in 1995, changed the story in any way.

No, I always understood the fact that modules are not necessarily derived works and they simply 'use' the system interface as permitted by the Linux license. Those quotes from Linux and Eben Moglen just removed any possible doubt.

--
  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