Fedora/RH policies sometimes suck

[Rahul Sundaram]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> 
>>> Sometimes the truth is funny... By design, there is no legal way to 
>>> distribute a combination of GPL'd code and anything with different 
>>> restrictions.  
>>
>> Do you mean bundled together? You can certainly do that. A copyright 
>> license cannot outright restrict mere bundles of unrelated components.
> 
> I mean as described by the GPL - in anything that can be construed as a 
> derived work containing any GPL'd code.  Such a thing can't be 
> distributed unless GPL terms can apply to the work as a whole. 

GPL license does not involve unrelated components. You claimed that a 
combination is not possible. It certainly is. The restrictions on a 
copyright license can only apply to code that uses it. Merely combining 
components cannot ever be restricted by a copyright license.

>>  The only way a product that includes GPL'd code can
>>> contain any of those things is if someone buys the right to allow 
>>> unlimited free redistribution and there is no practical way for many 
>>> users to share the cost of that.
>>
>> Not true as has been indicated many times to you before. Look at 
>> Freespire for example. They have patent licenses and include 
>> proprietary codecs for gratis.
> 
> Lots of places do lots of things that are not permitted by the GPL so I 
> can't comment on whether this is a valid counterexample or not.

It is. Do your basic fact checks before you repeatedly claim things 
which are not true. A Linux distribution can definitely include code 
with different restrictions from GPL. In fact pretty much all the Linux 
distributions do that.

Rahul