Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Tue Jul 22 06:48:46 UTC 2008
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> but if you've agreed to the GPL terms covering that copy, you have
>> agreed not to
>
> Again, think dual licensing. The phrase:
>
> nothing else grants you permission to modify or
> distribute the Program or its derivative works.
Yes, so if you want to distribute a copy under the GPL, you must agree
to its terms, which then cover the entire work.
> under section 5 of GPLv2 would preclude dual licensing if it was
> interpreted the way you seem to want. It doesn't (and can't) affect
> any other permissions you might have.
Obviously you can still obtain a different copy of a dual-licensed work
in a way that doesn't require accepting the GPL with it. But both
licenses can't apply at once.
> Not because the GPL says so,
> but rather because that's how copyright (pure, as in not-a-contract)
> licenses work.
But as you keep pointing out, copyright law is what keeps you from
distributing the GPL'd work unless you agree to its terms.
> What is says applies to the license itself taken in
> isolation, and it's true within that context. Once you have other
> permissions, nothing in the license can stop you from enjoying them,
> regardless of whatever the license says. It would have to be a signed
> contract to take away any right you have.
But if you don't agree to the license you can't distribute it under the
GPL. And the license covers the work as a whole, so your choice to
accept the license would mean you have agreed not to distribute any of
it under other terms (per section 2b). It's not a matter of rights, it
is what you have agreed to.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
More information about the users
mailing list