Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

[Les Mikesell]

Anders Karlsson wrote:
> * Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> [20080720 19:42]:
>> Anders Karlsson wrote:
>>> And any license that does not permit itself to be replaced or
>>> over-ruled by the GPL - is hence incompatible - even if it explicitly
>>> permits combination with the GPL for any derived work or combination
>>> work.
>>>
>>> Am I understanding this right?
>> This part is incorrect. If has additional requirements but explicitly  
>> states that the combination is compatible with GPL, then it is. Affero  
>> GPL (AGPL) is a example of this.
>>
>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
> 
> Thanks Rahul for taking the time to be plesant and provide useful
> answers to a genuine question. You are a credit to your employer and
> to the organisation you represent.
> 
>> "Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have  
>> permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed  
>> under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined  
>> work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will  
>> continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work  
>> with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU  
>> General Public License."
> 
> So the part of the work that is non-GPL licensed, can stay non-GPL
> licensed in the combined works and derivatives?

Note that he is describing GPL v3.  Under V2 (which applies to the 
majority of works), nothing can be in a 'work as a whole' unless the 
exact terms of GPLv2 apply to all parts.  Of course in the case of 
pre-existing code already under a less restrictive license, the original 
terms remain on the original package.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com