Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

[Les Mikesell]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:


>> but if you've agreed to the GPL terms covering that copy, you have
>> agreed not to
> 
> Again, think dual licensing.  The phrase:
> 
>   nothing else grants you permission to modify or
>   distribute the Program or its derivative works.

Yes, so if you want to distribute a copy under the GPL, you must agree 
to its terms, which then cover the entire work.

> under section 5 of GPLv2 would preclude dual licensing if it was
> interpreted the way you seem to want.  It doesn't (and can't) affect
> any other permissions you might have.

Obviously you can still obtain a different copy of a dual-licensed work 
in a way that doesn't require accepting the GPL with it. But both 
licenses can't apply at once.

> Not because the GPL says so,
> but rather because that's how copyright (pure, as in not-a-contract)
> licenses work.

But as you keep pointing out, copyright law is what keeps you from 
distributing the GPL'd work unless you agree to its terms.

> What is says applies to the license itself taken in
> isolation, and it's true within that context.  Once you have other
> permissions, nothing in the license can stop you from enjoying them,
> regardless of whatever the license says.  It would have to be a signed
> contract to take away any right you have.

But if you don't agree to the license you can't distribute it under the 
GPL.  And the license covers the work as a whole, so your choice to 
accept the license would mean you have agreed not to distribute any of 
it under other terms (per section 2b).  It's not a matter of rights, it 
is what you have agreed to.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com