Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Mon Jul 21 03:36:38 UTC 2008

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> probably no one would bother to prove the lineage knowing that an
>> identical non-GPL'd copy existed.
> And, even if one did, AFAIK the copyright over the code in question is
> held solely by the party who first offered it under a more permissive
> license, so why would she bother to enforce a less permissive license,
> even if she could?  But then, IANAL.

Agreed that there is next to no chance for enforcement in such a case, 
but does your reading of the GPL not indicate that non-GPL distribution 
of copies of anything ever covered by its work-as-a-whole provision is 
prohibited?  I don't see any escape clause.  Separately packaged 
dual-licensed packages might leave the choice of subsequent 
redistribution up to the recipient, but I don't see any provision for 
snipping a function out of covered code and re-using it in a way the GPL 
would not permit.

   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com

More information about the fedora-list mailing list