Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms at 1407.org
Thu Jul 24 10:14:23 UTC 2008

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:29:26PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> In general the terms I'm speaking of are more permissive than the GPL  
> and the GPL is the one that was intentionally incompatible, but that's  
> not the point.  The point is that the work-as-a-whole clause is an  
> immoral restriction.

Don't include GPL'ed software, then.

> No, but it means you haven't read or understood what accepting the  
> license takes away from you.
> Depending on your legal system there may or may not be a difference  
> between a license and a contract, but having agreed to:

Regardless of legal system, you don't accept the GNU GPL. That's moronic
since the GNU GPL is unilateral.

	"You do it this way, or you don't by default of copyright"

> And here's a more pragmatic take on the issue.  Someone who says they  
> got more contributions back after changing their licenses from GPL to  
> something non-copyleft along with eliminating the moral issue of taking  
> away the choices of subsequent contributors:
> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2001/12/12/transition.html?page=1

It doesn't take away the choices of subsequent contributons since they
didn't have any by default.

It *grants* extra freedoms to those by defaut of the law.

That these extra freedoms have as a rule of thumb "if you distribute,
you must give back under the same terms" is a *plus* and not a minus.

What you're "crying" about is about the GNU GPL not giving the power to
restrict freedom. An that is very good indeed, keep crying, at least I
don't care for crocodile tears.


Today is Setting Orange, the 59th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

More information about the fedora-list mailing list