Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

[Gordon Messmer]

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.

HOWEVER:  The terms of the code that you've contributed under a 
compatible license are not replaced.  Users who receive your work may 
reuse that work under the terms of YOUR license without regard for the 
GPL, so long as they do not use the GPL licensed parts of the whole 
work.  The terms of your license remain on your code, and are not 
replaced in any way by the terms of the GPL.

>> When took in isolation, it's still under
>> the modified BSD license,
> 
> 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.