Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

[Les Mikesell]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:

>> Please explain how a work containing any GPL'd material can contain
>> any that is not covered by the GPL, given the 'work as a whole'
>> provision in the license.   While there are indeed licenses that
>> permit their own terms to be replaced by the GPL when used in this
>> way, that means the terms _become_ the GPL, not that different terms
>> are or can be, by design, compatible.
> 
> Not quite.  A license such as your beloved modified BSD license does
> not permit relicensing.  What makes it compatible with the GPL is that
> it grants all the permissions granted by the GPL, and it doesn't
> establish any requirements that are not present in the GPL.

If I add some bsd code into a gpl'd work, could I then distribute the 
resulting binary and only the previously gpl'd code?   This would be 
permissible if the bsd code retained its own license.  Instead, I 
believe it becomes encumbered with the gpl restrictions - and could not 
be used otherwise.

>> I have a beef with representing restrictions as freedom.
> 
> You seem to not understand the difference between freedom and power,
> and insist in demanding power when what you deserve and have is
> freedom.

No, I understand that restrictions are not freedom.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com