Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

[Les Mikesell]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
>> Some licenses do allow their own terms to be replaced by the GPL,
> 
> True, but these are very rare.  GNU LGPL and the Brazilian LPG-AP v2,
> so far unpublished, are the only examples that come to mind.
> 
> Most licenses that are compatible with the GPL are compatible just
> because they don't conflict with the terms and conditions of the GPL
> in any way, so distributing the work under the GPL (without removing
> the original license) is in perfect accordance with the terms and
> conditions of the original license.
> 
>> but it's a one way trip and that copy of such code no longer has its
>> original license terms.
> 
> Can you back this up?  All the evidence I've got suggests the exact
> opposite.

I thought you had just agreed with this in another posting. Of course 
the original copies of works covered by less restrictive licenses would 
remain available and there's next to no chance that the restriction 
would be enforced, but I can't find any way out of GPL requirements in 
the license once they have been applied.  That is, I think it is 
technically prohibited to cut a function out of a copy of code where the 
gpl work-as-a-whole coverage is effective and paste it into a work that 
will be distributed under non-gpl terms.  Only the copyright holder 
could enforce that but I don't see anywhere that it is explicitly 
allowed - or how it could be - within the GPL.

>> On the contrary, Linus clearly stated that a module was not
>> necessarily a derived work simply because it is loaded by the kernel
>> and uses the services of the kernel.
> 
> That's correct.  This is not the same as saying that, just because a
> module is loaded by the kernel and uses its services, it is NOT a
> derived work.  It may or may not be a derived work regardless of that.

Obviously - code could be included from other components, but that's 
equally true for any work.

>> Some people seem to think the story has changed recently,
> 
> On both sides :-)  (for such large values of recently as 1995+ :-)

I generally don't expect the truth to vary from day to day on this sort 
of issue, even for some moderately large number of days.

-- 
    Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com