Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Tue Jul 22 23:30:14 UTC 2008
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
>> The terms of a license have nothing to do with copyright law. You can
>> agree to anything in a license as long as it isn't actually illegal. An
>> exclusion of copyright rules is simply what you get in return.
>
> With the GNU GPL you don't have to agree with anything. It is an
> unilateral grant of rights as long as you fulfill some obligations when
> you distribute pristine, modified or derived copies.
If you don't agree to their terms you don't have the freedom to
redistribute.
> If you don't abide with those obligations, you don't have the permission
> to distribute pristine, modified or derived copies because copyright
> restricts it so.
Exactly, the license is very restrictive.
>> Even though they can't exactly force you to apply their terms to other
>> people's work, it is as close as you can get. They withhold your
>> freedom to redistribute until you have agreed to their terms - and in
>> the GPL case these must apply to all other combined work.
>
> Yes they can. Very simply it's the quid-pro-quod required of you in
> order for you to distribute pristine, modified or derived copies.
Is there even a name for quid-pro-quo when it attempts to involve third
parties in the way the GPL interferes with combining existing works with
different terms?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list