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