Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

[Les Mikesell]

Gordon Messmer wrote:
>
>> The GPL doesn't change terms on anything else and I've never implied 
>> that it can or does.
> 
> You have repeatedly insisted exactly that.

I've stated that is the practical effect, but the license can only 
control your actions, not anyone else's terms.  You are only given two 
choices for those actions.  You either don't do anything that copyright 
law would prohibit or you apply exactly the GPL terms to all parts of 
the work.

>  > However, it only grants permissions beyond
>> copyright restrictions if you comply with its terms
> 
> There's a cost associated with someone using a product that someone else 
> created?  Shocking!

To someone used to BSD, MPL, CDDL, etc. licenses that do not restrict 
sharing or improvement of covered code, it is.

>> I understand that there can be some contention about what a 'derived 
>> work' is.  But there can be no confusion about what the GPL says about 
>> the components, once you agree that a work is derived and thus 
>> encumbered by the terms.
> 
> You're changing the basis of your argument, but you're not providing any 
> more or better evidence for the position that you're arguing.  The GPL 
> does not and can not "encumber" works that were included under 
> compatible licenses. 

What it restricts is your actions, by your agreement to its terms.  And 
without that agreement you have the full restrictions of copyright law.

> Their original terms continue to apply.  This is a 
> fundamental component of copyright law.

Yes, but per your agreement to the GPL terms you can no longer use those 
terms yourself.  You've agreed not to.

>>> In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license 
>>> (copyright license), "work as a whole" does not mean each individual 
>>> part.
>>
>> Of course it does, or proprietary parts could be included - or 
>> linkages that make them a required part of the work as a whole.
> 
> Proprietary parts can not be included because the GPL specifically 
> prohibits terms more restrictive than its own to be applied to the work 
> as a whole.

There is nothing about more/less restrictive terms in section 2b.  The 
terms must be exactly as specified in the license.  If you don't agree 
to that you are not complying with the license.

> I'll reiterate my previous point:  The work as a whole is a functional 
> sum of all of the parts.  If some component of a work contains 
> restrictive licensing, then the sum of the licenses would be more 
> restrictive than the GPL.  Since the GPL forbids this, you may not 
> distribute a work that includes GPL licensed parts and proprietary parts.

Likewise for something less restrictive.

> Exactly the same thing, said another way: Including a proprietary 
> component would create a de facto proprietary work as a whole.  The 
> terms of the GPL prohibit using GPL components in a proprietary work as 
> a whole.

They prohibit using any other license. Please point out the exception 
you've found.  There is nothing that permits any different terms.

> "Work as a whole" does not mean all of the components, it means the sum 
> of the components.

That doesn't make any sense.

> A work which is partially GPL and partially some 
> other compatible license does not become licensed only under the GPL by 
> law, by intent, or by magic.

If you cannot distribute under exactly GPL terms, you can't distribute. 
   Compatible licenses, by definition, are those that permit this to happen.

> The work is licensed under several 
> licenses, each of which apply to separate components.  The terms of the 
> GPL don't override the terms of any other license; instead they prohibit 
> creating a whole work which includes components under incompatible 
> licenses.

The alternative licenses in dual-licensed works can be used by people 
who have not agreed to the GPL terms.

> In other words, when a work contains GPL and BSD licensed code, and you 
> distribute that work to another party, you are required to offer them 
> the source code to both the GPL and BSD licensed code.  This is not 
> because the terms of the GPL apply in some way to the BSD components, it 
> is because if you do not agree to distribute the source code to the BSD 
> components, then you aren't allowed to distribute the GPL components 
> either.

Yes, note how the GPL applies to all parts - because you agreed to apply 
it.  And you won't find any exceptions to that rule that let you stop 
applying it.

>>> None of the terms of the GPL require that you give up the rights that 
>>> you were granted by the copyright holder who gave you -- either 
>>> directly or indirectly -- code under a compatible license.
>>
>> Yes they do.  The concept of 'compatible license' shows specifically 
>> how you must give them up.   Compatible licenses are ones that permit 
>> you to do what the GPL demands.  If you weren't required to apply the 
>> GPL terms to all parts, then all other licenses would be compatible.
> 
> That argument is founded on the incorrect understanding that "work as a 
> whole" means all of the parts individually, rather than the sum of the 
> parts.  The former meaning is unenforceable under copyright law.

Copyright law is irrelevant. You agree to these terms.  Or you can't 
distribute the GPL part.  You can agree to any terms you want - or are 
forced to.

>> If, and only if, they have no need to agree to the GPL terms.  Doing 
>> both at the same time is a contradiction in logic and dishonest even 
>> if you are unlikely to be sued over it.
> 
> I think you have a warped sense of honesty.  As a developer, and as a 
> vocal advocate of the GPL as a license, I can't imagine anything that's 
> dishonest about using someone else's code according to the terms of 
> *their* license.

The point is that the licenses are contradictory.  You can't abide by 
the terms of the GPL while doing something it prohibits but another 
license permits.

> That is, if I receive a work composed of both GPL and BSD parts, and I 
> want to use the BSD parts under the BSD license, there is nothing 
> remotely illegal or unethical about doing so.  I'm obeying the terms of 
> the license set forth by the only person with the legal or moral right 
> to dictate them.

No, the GPL author has the right to make you agree not to use any other 
terms but his own choice on parts that are included in a derived work - 
or to prohibit that work from being shared.  My argument is not about 
rights, but rather that it is morally wrong to require this agreement 
from others both because of the nature of the choice and the prohibition 
of many potential works where the demand can't be met.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com