Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

[Les Mikesell]

Gordon Messmer wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>
>> Which was and is exactly my point.  The GPL must cover the work as a 
>> whole and thus is only compatible with licenses that permit their own 
>> terms to be replaced with those of the GPL.
> 
> You're confusing the terms of the license.  When you distribute a new 
> work derived from a GPL licensed work, the derived version must meet the 
> requirements of the GPL.  You must provide the complete source code and 
> allow redistribution, and meet all of the other terms.

Yes, that is the only context where being compatible with the GPL 
matters.  And in that context the GPL terms must apply to it all.

> HOWEVER:  The terms of the code that you've contributed under a 
> compatible license are not replaced.

No one ever claimed that components cannot retain their own license in 
the copies that have not been combined with a GPL line of code.  That's 
obvious, but irrelevant to the question of what happens when they are 
combined.

>> Nothing can be taken in isolation when it is part of work containing 
>> any GPL-covered content because of that work-as-a-whole restriction.
> 
> Sure it can.  Any function that you've contributed may be re-used by 
> another developer under your terms to implement the same function in a 
> work of theirs, which may or may not be licensed under the GPL.

I don't think that's technically true, although probably no one would 
bother to prove the lineage knowing that an identical non-GPL'd copy 
existed.  I believe that if you receive a work under the GPL, you are 
obligated to observe the GPL requirements on all copies of any part of it.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com